MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805579057

Development and Integration of a Human-Centered Volumetric Cockpit Situation Display for Distributed Air-Ground Operations

2005· article· en· W2805579057 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioresource Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTransport CanadaCarleton University
KeywordsCockpitComputer scienceAeronauticsComputer graphics (images)Engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Distributed Air Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM) simulation environments pilots flew desktop simulators, which included a Cockpit Situation Display (CSD). Within the current paper we will briefly review the tasks pilots were responsible for in the simulations and subsequently evaluate the tools made available on the CSD to assist the pilots in executing their tasks. Some of the tasks pilots were responsible for in the simulations included the following: to create and evaluate user-preferred routes, meet flight scheduling requirements at the meter fix, selfspace behind designated aircraft, and maintain separation with other aircraft. Some of the tools offered within the CSD to facilitate these tasks included a Route Analysis Tool (RAT), a Waypoint table with capabilities to input scheduling requirements, a Spacing tool, and Conflict Detection and Alerting logic. A detailed examination of these features and others will be discussed

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.306 · 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