Predictive Displays for a Process-Control Schematic Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the extent to which increasing precision of predictive (rate of change) information in process control will improve performance on a simulated process-control task. BACKGROUND: Predictive displays have been found to be useful in process control (as well as aviation and maritime industries). However, authors of prior research have not examined the extent to which predictive value is increased by increasing predictor resolution, nor has such research tied potential improvements to changes in process control strategy. METHOD: Fifty nonprofessional participants each controlled a simulated chemical mixture process (honey mixer simulation) that simulated the operations found in process control. Participants in each of five groups controlled with either no predictor or a predictor ranging in the resolution of prediction of the process. RESULTS: Increasing detail resolution generally increased the benefit of prediction over the control condition although not monotonically so. The best overall performance, combining quality and predictive ability, was obtained by the display of intermediate resolution. The two displays with the lowest resolution were clearly inferior. CONCLUSION: Predictors with higher resolution are of value but may trade off enhanced sensitivity to variable change (lower-resolution discrete state predictor) with smoother control action (higher-resolution continuous predictors). APPLICATION: The research provides guidelines to the process-control industry regarding displays that can most improve operator performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".