MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520134007 · doi:10.1177/1541931213601065

Pip and Pop

2016· article· en· W2520134007 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy Chamberland, Helen M. Hodgetts, Benoît R. Vallières, François Vachon, Sébastien Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsALARMModality (human–computer interaction)Computer scienceHuman multitaskingChange detectionWorkloadTask (project management)DistractionCovertComputer securityHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligencePsychologyCognitive psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic and complex command and control situations often require the timely recognition of changes in the environment in order to detect potentially malicious actions. Change detection can be challenging within a continually evolving scene, and particularly under multitasking conditions whereby attention is necessarily divided between several subtasks. On-screen tools can assist with detection (e.g., providing a visual record of changes, ensuring that none are overlooked), however, in a high workload environment, this may result in information overload to the detriment of the primary task. One alternative is to exploit the auditory modality as a means to support visual change detection. In the current study, we use a naval air-warfare simulation, and introduce an auditory alarm to coincide with critical visual changes (in aircraft speed/direction) on the radar. We found that participants detected a greater percentage of visual changes and were significantly quicker to detect these changes when they were accompanied by an auditory alarm than when they were not. Furthermore, participants reported that mental demand was lower in the auditory alarm condition, and this was reflected in reduced classification omissions on the primary task. Results are discussed in relation to Wickens’ multiple resource theory of attention and indicate the potential for using the auditory modality to facilitate visual change detection.

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 score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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