MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163520596 · doi:10.1518/0018720024494829

Ecological Interface Design: Progress and Challenges

2002· review· en· W2163520596 on OpenAlexaff
Kim J. Vicente

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociotechnical systemVariety (cybernetics)Interface (matter)Computer scienceNoveltyFidelityProcess (computing)Control (management)Systems engineeringInformation systemRisk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementEngineering managementEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological interface design (EID) is a theoretical framework for designing human-computer interfaces for complex sociotechnical systems. Its primary aim is to support knowledge workers in adapting to change and novelty. This literature review shows that in situations requiring problem solving, EID improves performance when compared with current design approaches in industry. EID has been applied to industry-scale problems in a broad variety of application domains (e.g., process control, aviation, computer network management, software engineering, medicine, command and control, and information retrieval) and has consistently led to the identification of new information requirements. An experimental evaluation of EID using a full-fidelity simulator with professional workers has yet to be conducted, although some are planned. Several significant challenges remain as obstacles to the confident use of EID in industry. Promising paths for addressing these outstanding issues are identified. Actual or potential applications of this research include improving the safety and productivity of complex sociotechnical systems.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations452
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietySame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207