MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314072434 · doi:10.1177/154193120304700305

Bridging the Gap Between Cognitive Work Analysis and Ecological Interface Design

2003· article· en· W2314072434 on OpenAlexafffund
Greg A. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBridging (networking)Interface (matter)Interface designComputer scienceWork (physics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Process (computing)Management scienceProcess managementHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringKnowledge managementEcologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cognitive Work Analysis and Ecological Interface Design frameworks have garnered a great deal of attention in recent years. The former is used to analyze a complex work domain to identify the behavior-shaping constraints imposed by the work domain, control tasks, strategies, operator competencies, and socio-organizational factors. The latter informs the design of operator interfaces for complex systems. Although the two frameworks overlap, a gap remains between the analysis and design stages. This article shows one path across that gap. Aspects of both frameworks were applied to the design of an ecological interface for a petrochemical process. We discuss how the project was completed under realistic time and budget constraints, review several unanticipated obstacles that we encountered, and relate design examples to help overcome the gap between analysis and design.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207