Modeling Automation With Cognitive Work Analysis to Support Human-Automation Coordination
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive work analysis is useful to develop displays for complex situations, but it has not been well explored in providing support for human-automation coordination. To fill this gap, we propose a degree of automation (DOA) layering approach, demonstrated by modeling an automated financial trading domain, with a goal of supporting interface design in this domain. The abstraction hierarchy and the decision ladder each adopted an additional layer, mapping functions allocated to the trader and to the automation. In addition to the mapping, we marked the four stages of automation on the decision ladder to provide guidance on representing the function allocation at the task level. Next, we compared the DOA layering approach to how automation was represented in the cognitive work analysis literature. We found that a DOA-layered decision ladder, which included well-developed knowledge of the stages and levels of automation, can be suited to modern automated systems with different DOAs. This study suggests that the DOA layering approach has important implications for designing automation displays and deciding stages and levels of automation and may be a useful approach for modeling adaptive 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it