An Analysis of Factors Influencing Ice Management Performance in an Experimental Marine Simulator and Their Application to Decision Support System Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ice management is essential for maintaining the safety of offshore operations in Arctic regions. We present the combined results of three experiments conducted in a full-mission bridge simulator specially designed for ice management. From a quantitative analysis of the results, we infer the effect of three variables on performance: (1) experience, (2) training, and (3) Decision Support System (DSS). The results confirm that experience and training improve performance for untrained and inexperienced simulator participants. The DSS also improves performance, but with a smaller effect. Qualitative observations using vessel position heat-map diagrams and exit interviews suggested that novice participants using the DSS adopted expert strategies but carried out their tasks more slowly and with less precision. This has important consequences for the design of a future DSS used in training simulators or onboard ships. Potential improvements to the DSS design might include real-time feedback to the user, a redesign of the human–machine interface (HMI), and increasing user input and customization with a human factors focus.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".