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 OpenAlex
Stathis Malakis, Marc Baumgartner, Berzina Nora, Larsen Tom, Anthony Smoker, Poti Andrea, Fabris Gabriele

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
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 head0.051
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