MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794152316 · doi:10.1145/3171221.3171259

It's All in Your Head

2018· article· en· W2794152316 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Rea, James E. Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeleoperationRobotPerceptionHuman–computer interactionComputer sciencePriming (agriculture)Operator (biology)SimulationImpressionArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyComputer visionEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceptions of a technology can shape the way the technology is used and adopted. Thus, in teleoperation, it is important to understand how a teleoperator's perceptions of a robot can be shaped, and whether those perceptions can impact how people drive robots. Priming, evoking activity in a person by exposing them to learned stimuli, is one way of shaping someone's perception. We investigate priming an operator's impression of a robot's physical capabilities in order to impact their perception of the robot and teleoperation behavior; that is, we examine if we can change operator driving behavior simply by making them believe that a robot is dangerous or safe, fast or slow, etc., without actually changing robot capability. Our results show that priming (with no change to robot behavior or capability) can impact operator perception of the robot, their teleoperation experience, and in some cases may impact teleoperation performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.041

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207