MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211867728 · doi:10.1177/1071181321651113

Combining Process Tracing and Policy Capturing Techniques for Judgment Analysis in an Anti-Submarine Warfare Simulation

2021· article· en· W3211867728 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Labonté, Daniel Lafond, Bénédicte Chatelais, Aren Hunter, Folakemi Akpan, Heather F. Neyedli, Sébastien Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaThales (Canada)Dalhousie UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess tracingTracingSubmarineProcess (computing)Computer scienceTask (project management)Shadow (psychology)Operations researchDecision support systemInformation warfareArtificial intelligenceComputer securityEngineeringPsychologySystems engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cognitive Shadow is a prototype decision support tool that can notify users when they deviate from their usual judgment pattern. Expert decision policies are learned automatically online while performing one’s task using a combination of machine learning algorithms. This study investigated whether combining this system with the use of a process tracing technique could improve its ability to model human decision policies. Participants played the role of anti-submarine warfare commanders and rated the likelihood of detecting a submarine in different ocean areas based on their environmental characteristics. In the process tracing condition, participants were asked to reveal only the information deemed necessary, and only that information was sent to the system for model training. In the control condition, all the available information was sent to the system with each decision. Results showed that process tracing data improved the model’s ability to predict human decisions compared to the control condition.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2021
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