MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153751369 · doi:10.1109/fuzzy.2010.5584237

Temporal fuzzy based modeling as applied to the class of man-machine interaction

2010· article· en· W2153751369 on OpenAlexaff
Jamil Abou Saleh, Fakhreddine Karray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRobotAutomationArtificial intelligenceFuzzy logicMachine learningRoboticsPerceptionClass (philosophy)Function (biology)Human–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive robotics have been recently touted as effective tools that could be used in a number of applications. In order for cognitive robots to act adequately and safely in real world, they must be able to achieve effective human-machine interaction or collaboration. Toward this end, performance evaluation metrics are used as important measures to achieve these goals. Toward the efficient modelling of such metrics, we attempt to determine the true time that an operator has to dedicate to the robot. Therefore, we define the robot attention demand (RAD) as a function of both Direct Interaction Time (DIT) and Indirect Interaction Time (IIT), where the IIT is a direct consequence of human trust in automation. We then propose a two-level fuzzy temporal model to evaluate and estimate the human trust in automation while collaborating and interacting with robots and machines to complete some tasks. The model combines the advantages of fuzzy logic and finite state machines to best model this phenomenon, and reduces the system complexity and the size of the knowledge base by grouping perception into first- and second-order perceptions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207