MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520837130 · doi:10.1177/1541931213601154

Development of a Baseline Workload Model for Future Submarine Sonar Crewing Analysis

2016· article· en· W2520837130 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wenbi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadSonarNavyTask (project management)Computer scienceSubmarineBaseline (sea)Operator (biology)Set (abstract data type)SimulationOperations researchReal-time computingEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMarine engineeringSystems engineeringOperating systemGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computational human performance model was developed to analyze sonar operator workload using the legacy sonar system on the Royal Canadian Navy’s Victoria-Class Submarine. The paper describes key components of the model, including a task network for representing operator activities, the Visual, Auditory, Cognitive and Psychomotor (VACP) algorithm for characterizing task demand, and a discrete-event simulation for predicting operator workload. Results from a simulation experiment revealed high levels of task demand imposed by the adopted mission scenario and an uneven distribution of workload among four sonar operators under a specific contact assignment scheme. The results establish a set of performance benchmarks that will be used for evaluating workload predictions made by a future model of a new sonar system, supporting quantifiable assessment of crewing options for the future sonar system.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2016
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