MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161259205 · doi:10.1177/154193121005400431

The AlphaACT Decision Support System for Emergency Responders

2010· article· en· W2161259205 on OpenAlexaff
An T. Oskarsson, C.R. Hodgin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsAlpha Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision support systemKey (lock)Computer scienceR-CASTProcess (computing)Crisis managementDecision engineeringDecision makerKnowledge managementBusiness decision mappingProcess managementHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceComputer securityEngineeringOperations researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We first present cognitive psychological theories relevant to crisis decision making. Next we describe the AlphaACT™ (Alpha Advanced Crisis Technology) decision support system, a software application designed to support a range of military and civilian emergency responders. The essential components of the system are as follows: (a) a user interface that walks the decision maker through a multi-step decision process inspired by the recognition-primed decision model and case-based reasoning theory; (b) a pattern recognition engine that prompts the user for diagnostic information and retrieves similar cases; and (c) a community-wide shared knowledge base of cases that grows as the system is used. AlphaACT's objective is to train and enable responders in crisis situations to think like experienced decision makers, and to quickly build their store of available experiences. The first AlphaACT application under development will support key decisions made by first responders managing a hazardous materials emergency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207