MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258233657 · doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.815

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Transportation Control Systems

2015· article· en· W2258233657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. J. Dobson

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Manufacturing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationCognitive ergonomicsWorkloadControl (management)Human errorContext (archaeology)Human factors and ergonomicsEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Work (physics)Transport engineeringSystems engineeringComputer sciencePoison controlBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employing case studies taken from work experience in the UK, USA, Canada and Japan this paper observes the evolution of Human Factors (HF) and ergonomics in the railroad from a practitioner's point of view. Practical areas for application of HF at specific points in railroad signaling and control systems are described. HF considerations in advanced train control systems and the movement towards automation are discussed as well as the impact of these new technologies on the context of operation itself. There is now a greater reliance on the operator to remain vigilant and react efficiently when intervention on automation is required both within the control room and driver cab environments. This paper illustrates some of the human performance concerns for novel transportation control systems that are faced today and discusses how this area of cognitive attention, human error and workload is difficult to assess and predict.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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