MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319761789 · doi:10.1027/2192-0923/a000237

Policy Capturing to Support Pilot Decision-Making

2023· article· en· W4319761789 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Marois, Daniel Lafond, Amandine Audouy, Hugo Boronat, Patrick Mazoyer

Bibliographic record

VenueAviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsThales (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementComputer scienceShadow (psychology)Decision support systemArtificial intelligenceDecision ruleDecision modelMachine learningOperations researchManagement sciencePsychologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Single-pilot operations are cognitively challenging for pilots and could benefit from decision-support tools to mitigate risk-prone situations. The Cognitive Shadow is a prototype tool that employs policy capturing, a data-driven technique used to model decisions, to learn users’ judgement policies and alert decision discrepancies from one’s decision pattern. This proof-of-concept study investigates the potential of policy capturing to model pilots’ policies facing unstable approaches. Pilots were presented simulated cases and asked whether to continue descent or to go-around while the policy-capturing tool learned their decision pattern and provided feedback. Individual models reached mean predictive accuracy of ~ 89% while the group model reached 100%. These results speak to the potential of extracting pilots’ knowledge using policy capturing to create decision aids.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAviation Psychology and Applied Human FactorsSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207