Human Performance Benefits of The Automation Transparency Design Principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Test the automation transparency design principle using a full-scope nuclear power plant simulator. BACKGROUND: Automation transparency is a long-held human factors design principle espousing that the responsibilities, capabilities, goals, activities, and/or effects of automation should be directly observable in the human-system interface. The anticipated benefits of transparency include more effective reliance, more appropriate trust, better understanding, and greater user satisfaction. Transparency has enjoyed a recent upsurge in use in the context of human interaction with agent-oriented automation. METHOD: Three full-scope nuclear power plant simulator studies were conducted with licensed operating crews. In the first two experiments, transparency was implemented for interlocks, controllers, limitations, protections, and automatic programs that operate at the local component level of the plant. In the third experiment, procedure automation assumed control of plant operations and was represented in dedicated agent displays. RESULTS: Results from Experiments 1 and 2 appear to validate the human performance benefits of automation transparency for automation at the component level. However, Experiment 3 failed to replicate these findings for automation that assumed control for executing procedural actions. CONCLUSION: Automation transparency appears to yield expected benefits for component-level automation, but caution is warranted in generalizing the design principle to agent-oriented automation. APPLICATION: The automation transparency design principle may offer a powerful means of compensating for the detrimental impacts of hidden automation influence at the component level of complex systems. However, system developers should exercise caution in assuming that the principle extends to agent-oriented automation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".