Using Eye Movements to Uncover Conflict Detection Strategies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to uncover conflict detection strategies in a simplified air traffic control simulation. The primary task in this study was to predict if two aircraft at the same altitude but different speeds on a converging trajectory would collide in the future. While participants made this judgment their eye-movements were recorded. Dwell time indicated that participants fixated longer on the aircraft than they did on the projected collision site. The results of the scanpath analysis indicated that participants were more likely to scan between the two aircraft than any other two interest areas. Results also indicated that the second most prevalent scanpath was between the collision site and the faster aircraft (SWA23). The least likely scanpath was between the collision site and the slower (and closer) aircraft (UAL74). The results suggest that the assimilation of speed and distance information demand more attention than is required for the projection of the collision site.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it