MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510150378 · doi:10.1177/1541931213601302

Effects of a Warning on Interruption Recovery in Dynamic Settings

2016· article· en· W2510150378 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Labonté, Sébastien Tremblay, François Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeknowledgeTask (project management)Computer scienceWarning systemComputer securityRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operators working in extreme environments are often confronted with task interruptions. These interruptions tend to impair performance, which can represent a threat to public safety. Most of the tools designed to aid task resumption in such dynamic contexts are post-interruption solutions consisting of providing information about missed events once the interruption is over. The goal of the present study is to test whether a pre-interruption solution consisting of warning operators of an impending interruption can also facilitate interruption recovery. We employed a microworld simulating above-water warfare and compared primary task recovery following an interruption that could either be notified (8 s before it takes place) or not. Results revealed enhanced post-interruption decision accuracy and speed when providing foreknowledge of the imminent interruption. These findings suggest that a pre-interruption warning, which has already proven effective in static contexts, can also support interruption recovery in dynamic settings.

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)0.001
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 score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207