Bibliographic record
Abstract
CSBILEs allow the compression of time and space and provide an opportunity for practicing managerial decision making in a non-threatening way (Issacs & Senge, 1994). In a computer simulation-based interactive learning environments (CSBILEs), decision makers can test their assumptions, practice exerting control over a business situation, and learn from the immediate feedback of their decisions. CSBILE’s effectiveness is associated directly with decision-making effectiveness; that is, if one CSBILE improves decision-making effectiveness more than other CSBILEs, it is more effective than others. Despite an increasing interest in CSBILEs, empirical evidence to their effectiveness is inconclusive (Bakken, 1993; Diehl & Sterman, 1995; Moxnes, 1998). The aim of this article is to present a case for HCI design principles as a viable potential way to improve the design of CSBILEs and, hence, their effectiveness in improving decision makers’ performance in dynamic tasks. This article is organized as follows: some background concepts are presented first; next, we present an assessment of the prior research on (i) DDM and CSBILE and (ii) HCI and dynamic decision making (DDM); the section on future trends presents some suggestion for future research. This article concludes with some conclusions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".