MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391542999 · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2024.103889

Does fiducial marker visibility impact task performance and information processing in novice and low-time pilots?

2024· article· en· W4391542999 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Graphics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFiducial markerComputer scienceGazeDistractionVisibilityComputer visionFixation (population genetics)Artificial intelligenceEye trackingTask (project management)PsychologyMedicineOpticsCognitive psychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invisible fiducial markers are introduced for localization of Areas Of Interest (AOIs) in mobile eye tracking applications. Fiducial markers are made invisible through the use of film passing Infra-Red (IR) light while blocking the visible spectrum. An IR light source is used to illuminate the markers which are then detected by an IR-sensitive camera, but which are imperceptible by the human eye. We provide the first empirical study that demonstrates such invisible markers are not distracting to a given task, as demonstrated in a flight simulator where distraction of visible and invisible markers are compared between experienced and novice pilots. Fixation frequency and subjective distraction scores showed that visible markers disrupted natural gaze behaviour, particularly in novice pilots. Our findings show that invisible markers should be used when there is a need for them to remain inconspicuous.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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