Understanding Levels of Automation in Human-Machine Collaboration
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
Recent advances in software and artificial intelligence technologies have led to the increasing need to support the collaboration between humans and systems in various application domains. The growing capacity for systems has leveraged the power of building applications that have higher autonomy. However, a proper understanding of allocating tasks to either humans or machines is still lacking, and no suggestions are provided to support this allocation. Current approaches do not consider knowledge about the appropriate level of automation (LOA) in this collaboration and do not support adaptive automation, especially task assignments during the system’s operation. The knowledge about which factors affect the variability in human-system interaction LOA has not been explicitly captured. This paper presents a preliminary study that identifies the factors that influence levels of automation in autonomous systems and present the identified factors as a list. Identifying the factors that influence the level of autonomy of systems advances research in the design of autonomous systems by introducing an adaptive automation approach that can recommend levels of automation to support human-computer interactions. Modern systems must be prepared to identify, capture and process the significant volume and variety of data related to the factors that might influence the variability of systems’ behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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