The Absence of Degree of Automation Trade-Offs in Complex Work Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test the predictions of the routine-failure trade-off (or lumberjack) model in a full-scope simulator study with expert operators performing realistic control tasks. BACKGROUND: A meta-study of degree of automation (DOA) studies concluded that DOA predicts task performance under both routine and automation failure conditions, workload, and situation awareness. Empirical support for this conclusion appears to be weak for complex work situations. METHOD: A full-scope nuclear power plant simulator experiment was conducted in which licensed operating crews completed realistic procedure execution tasks. Dependent measures selected from the lumberjack model were collected and analyzed for systematic effects. RESULTS: Situation awareness increased with increasing DOA, which contradicts the lumberjack model. Anticipated workload and failure task performance effects were not observed. CONCLUSION: The experimental results add further evidence challenging the applicability of the lumberjack model to complex work situations. APPLICATION: Practitioners should use caution when extending the predictions of the lumberjack model based on data from simple work situations to complex work situations. Researchers should invest more resources in testing the predictive power of the lumberjack model in complex work situations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".