MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213383366 · doi:10.4236/as.2022.132016

Design and Evaluation of a User Interface for an Autonomous Agricultural Sprayer

2022· article· en· W4213383366 on OpenAlexafffund
Uduak Edet, Franklin Ogidi, D. D. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSprayerInterface (matter)Human–computer interactionAutomationComputer scienceUser interfaceUsabilityField (mathematics)EngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the design and evaluation of a user interface for a remotely supervised autonomous agricultural sprayer. The interface was designed to help the remote supervisor to instruct the autonomous sprayer to commence operation, monitor the status of the sprayer and its operation in the field, and intervene when needed (i.e., to stop or shut down). Design principles and guidelines were carefully selected to help develop a human-centered automation interface. Evaluation of the interface using a combination of heuristic, cognitive walkthrough, and user testing techniques revealed several strengths of the design as well as areas that needed further improvement. Overall, this paper provides guidelines that will assist other researchers to develop an ergonomic user interface for a fully autonomous agricultural machine.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural SciencesSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207