MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212871530 · doi:10.1177/1071181321651008

Modeling Pilot Flight Performance in a Cognitive Architecture: Model Demonstration

2021· article· en· W3212871530 on OpenAlexaff
Rongbing Xu, Shi Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive architectureComputer scienceCognitive modelWorkloadTakeoffAviationCognitionQueueing theoryAir traffic controlFlight simulatorSet (abstract data type)ArchitectureSituation awarenessHuman–computer interactionSimulationArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive architecture models can support the simulation and prediction of human performance in complex human-machine systems. In the current work, we demonstrate a pilot model that can perform and simulate taxiing and takeoff tasks. The model was built in Queueing Network-Adaptive Control of Thought Rational (QN-ACTR) cognitive architecture and can be connected to flight simulators such as X-Plane to generate various data, including performance, mental workload, and situation awareness. The model results are determined in combination by the declarative knowledge chunks, production rules, and a set of parameters. Currently, the model can generate flight operation behavior similar to human pilots. We will collect human pilot data to examine further and validate model assumptions and parameter values. Once validated, such models can support interface evaluation and competency-based pilot training, providing a theory-based predictive approach complementary to human-in-the-loop experiments for aviation research and development.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
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