MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114632700 · doi:10.1177/1064804620982711

Automation Confusion: Mental Models for Safe Vehicle Adoption

2020· article· en· W3114632700 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francesco Biondi

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics in Design The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsConfusionSAFERMental modelAutomationAdvanced driver assistance systemsRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEngineeringComputer securityPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An accurate and complete understanding of automated systems is necessary for their safe and effective use. In this article, I discuss the importance that driver’s mental models play in advanced driver assistance systems adoption. After discussing the contribution that the wider human factors literature made to the investigation on mental models, I discuss the safety risks associated with motorists’ incomplete or faulty mental models of assistance systems. Furthermore, I examine three solutions to educate motorists on how to operate assistance systems, and how a correct, complete understanding of these systems makes their adoption safer.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomics in Design The Quarterly of Human Factors ApplicationsSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207