MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327815765 · doi:10.1177/1541931213571402

Drivers’ Mental Workload In Agricultural Semi-Autonomous Vehicles

2013· article· en· W2327815765 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Behzad Bashiri, Danny Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorkloadAutomationTractorEngineeringSeederControl (management)SimulationSituation awarenessTransport engineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drivers’ mental workload when using driving assistant systems and in-vehicle automation has been the subject of many studies in recent years. Drivers of semi-autonomous agricultural vehicles are experiencing an increasing number of automated systems. Due to implications of automation support on the operators’ performance, a human factors perspective is needed to identify the consequences of such automated systems. In this simulator study, the effects of vehicle steering and implement monitoring and control automation were investigated using a tractor air-seeder system as a case study. Experiments were conducted using the tractor air-seeder driving simulator (TAS-DS) located in the Agricultural Ergonomics Laboratory at the University of Manitoba. Study participants were university students with tractor driving experience. Based on the results from the experiment, most of the automation conditions impose moderate levels of mental workload on operators. Implement monitoring and control automation show significant effect on the drivers’ mental workload, contrary to the steering automation.

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)0.000
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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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