MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995871272 · doi:10.1177/0018720819887252

Human Performance Benefits of The Automation Transparency Design Principle

2019· article· en· W2995871272 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)AutomationComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessComputer securityMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.257 · 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