MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388263139 · doi:10.1177/21695067231200872

Waking Up to the Challenge of Fatigue Management in Transportation

2023· article· en· W4388263139 on OpenAlexaff
Christina M. Rudin-Brown, Ashleigh Filtness, Michelle Gauthier, Crystal Kirkley, Daria Luisi, Muataz Jaber, Jana M. Price, Pierre Thiffault

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsTransport CanadaCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalling (accident)Commercial vehicleTransportation industryBusinessApplied psychologyOperations managementTransport engineeringPsychologyEngineeringPsychiatryAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While a vehicle operator falling asleep at the controls is the most obvious symptom of fatigue in transportation operations, less extreme and apparent fatigue levels are reliably associated with performance impairments in, for example, attention, information processing, memory, and situation awareness. Compared to in other industries, fatigue in transportation is made more likely by challenges to the body's circadian rhythm caused by shiftwork and travel across time zones. While experiencing fatigue is a normal physiological and behavioral state, for drivers, pilots, mariners, and other vehicle operators, experiencing fatigue while operating a vehicle can have catastrophic consequences. Fatigue can also contribute to heightened, though less-direct, risk for those who support transport operations, such as shift schedulers, supervisors, and managers. This discussion panel will explore high risk and important human factors challenges to fatigue management facing transportation workers and their industries today, and some practical, and proven, ways to manage them.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207