MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313201465 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.440

Challenges from the Introduction of Artificial Intelligence in the European Air Traffic Management System

2022· article· en· W4313201465 on OpenAlexaff
Stathis Malakis, Marc Baumgartner, Berzina Nora, Larsen Tom, Anthony Smoker, Poti Andrea, Fabris Gabriele

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsInternational Air Transport Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAir traffic managementContext (archaeology)Modernization theoryArtificial intelligenceAir traffic controlCognitionData scienceEngineeringPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Air Traffic Management (ATM) system can be defined as a “Joint Cognitive System” of people, teams, and artifacts that adapts to the challenges and demands posed by familiar and unfamiliar situations in a dynamically evolving operational context. In the era of digitalization and Big Data we live, an incremental modernization of the ATM system is expected in the coming years with the pervasive implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). In this paper, we present the findings from an initial attempt to detect and document the fundamental challenges of the introduction of AI, in the European ATM system through the lens of Cognitive Systems Engineering paradigm. We also discuss how these challenges give rise to difficult to resolve safety and performance related patterns in the ATM system.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.007
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207