MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221099347 · doi:10.18280/ts.390101

Interaction Model of the Cabin of Combined Sugarcane Harvesters

2022· article· en· W4221099347 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceALARMMode (computer interface)Warning systemChannel (broadcasting)Speech recognitionSimulationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceLatency (audio)Dual modeReal-time computingEngineeringHuman–computer interactionElectronic engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Owing to visual blind spot areas and occasional negligence, combined sugarcane harvester drivers often make mistakes in field operation, some of which evolve into major accidents. To improve drivers’ perception of and response to warning information, this paper explores the optimal interaction mode of warning information for the cabin of combined sugarcane harvesters. A series of experiments were carried out on a stationary driving simulator to verify the driver experience and alarm efficiency of three modes of warning information, namely, text, audio, and image, as well as their dual-channel modes. The physiological data, such as electrodermal activity (EDA), photoplethysmography (PPG), and electroencephalogram (EEG), of eight subjects were collected through the experiments. On this basis, the cognitive load of drivers was analyzed under different modes of warning information. The motion feedback time was recorded to parse the driver’s recognition rate and reaction speed to the warning information, and the eye movement was captured to analyze the driver’s attention distribution. The results show that the recognition rate under the dual-channel mode of visual and audio is higher than that of the single-channel mode of text or image. The addition of the visual warning information (text or image) to the audio information reduces the attention distribution time, and the best reduction effect is achieved in the image plus voice mode. The EDA indices of latency, amp sum, and mean half decay time fully reflect the effect of alarm information modes on the subjects’ reaction speed and emotional stimulation. The image plus voice mode has the fastest response speed, smallest response to stimuli, and the best ability for emotional recovery than the other modes. The eye movement, some EDA indices, and EEG are more sensitive to stress reaction, while the HRV is not sensitive for analyzing drivers’ stress to the stimuli of warning information in a short time. The research results lay the basis for designing a more efficient and accurate reminder mode of warning information for combined sugarcane harvesters.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.183 · 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