MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340623087 · doi:10.1177/1541931215591149

Cross-Country Validation of a Cultural Scale in Measuring Trust in Automation

2015· article· en· W2340623087 on OpenAlex
Shih‐Yi Chien, Michael Lewis, Sebastian Hergeth, Zhaleh Semnani‐Azad, Katia Sycara

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsAutomationGermanTurkishScale (ratio)Process (computing)Knowledge managementComputer scienceBusinessData scienceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human automation interaction is a complex process. How autonomous assistance impacts trust in automation as well as how trust affects human calibration and use of automation has been investigated for both dynamic contexts, including the internal variables (e.g., cultural characteristics) and external factors (e.g., system settings). Having standardized measures to capture trust and its antecedents is particularly critical to understanding how factors associated with the human operators and autonomous applications affects the way they are used. This paper reports the development of a trust instrument and several rounds of cross-country validation, including U.S., German, Taiwanese, and Turkish populations. The results confirm that the instrument which was developed reliably measured human trust in automation across cultures.

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.

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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.283 · 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