MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767934528 · doi:10.1109/thms.2017.2767284

Influence of Information Layout on Diagnosis Performance

2017· article· en· W2767934528 on OpenAlexaff
Kejin Chen, Zhizhong Li, Greg A. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInterface (matter)AbstractionComputer scienceHorizontal and verticalHierarchyHuman–computer interactionTask (project management)Domain (mathematical analysis)User interfaceEngineeringSystems engineeringProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective diagnosis performance is necessary for the operation of safety-critical industrial systems. Diagnosis depends on the information provided, perceived, interpreted, and integrated by operators. This paper examines the influence of information layout on diagnosis performance. Three layouts were designed to meet the information requirements identified through a work domain analysis and task analysis. One interface depicted the vertical means-end relations in the abstraction hierarchy, a second depicted the horizontal relations between nodes, and a third followed a conventional mimic layout. Because vertical means-end relations present a clear mapping between functional and physical information, it was hypothesized that the vertical interface would facilitate more effective use of functional information and thereby better support diagnosis performance compared with the horizontal and mimic interfaces. No significant influence of information layout on diagnosis accuracy or completion time was found. However, the participants who used the vertical and horizontal interfaces were more confident with their diagnosis conclusions than those using the mimic interface. In addition, the participants using the vertically integrated interface spent significantly less time generating correct hypotheses than the participants using either the horizontal or mimic interfaces. These findings stress the importance of information layout for interfaces of safety-critical systems.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine SystemsSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207