MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132626903 · doi:10.1177/1071181320641270

Comparing Two Decision Support Modes Using the Cognitive Shadow Online Policy-Capturing System

2020· article· en· W3132626903 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Labonté, Daniel Lafond, Aren Hunter, Heather F. Neyedli, Sébastien Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaThales (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)WorkloadMode (computer interface)Computer scienceCognitionDecision support systemHuman–computer interactionControl (management)SimulationArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cognitive Shadow is a prototype tool intended to support decision making by autonomously modeling human operators’ response pattern and providing online notifications to the operators about the decision they are expected to make in new situations. Since the system can be configured either in a reactive “shadowing” or a proactive “recommendation” mode, this study aimed to determine its most effective mode in terms of human and model accuracy, workload, and trust. Subjects participated in an aircraft threat evaluation simulation without decision support or while using either mode of the Cognitive Shadow. Whereas the recommendation mode had no advantage over the control condition, the shadowing mode led to higher human and model accuracy. These benefits were maintained even when the tool was unexpectedly removed. Neither mode influenced workload, and the initial lower trust rating in the shadowing mode faded quickly, making it the best overall configuration for the cognitive assistant.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207