MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392372944 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2319914

Practice With Less AI Makes Perfect: Partially Automated AI During Training Leads to Better Worker Motivation, Engagement, and Skill Acquisition

2024· article· en· W4392372944 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

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersInstitut de Valorisation des Données
KeywordsDreyfus model of skill acquisitionTraining (meteorology)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased prevalence of human-AI collaboration is reshaping the manufacturing sector, fundamentally changing the nature of human work and training needs. While high automation improves performance when functioning correctly, it can lead to problematic human performance (e.g., defect detection accuracy, response time) when operators are required to intervene and assume manual control of decision-making responsibilities. As AI capability reaches higher levels of automation and human–AI collaboration becomes ubiquitous, addressing these performance issues is crucial. Proper worker training, focusing on skill-based, cognitive, and affective outcomes, and nurturing motivation and engagement, can be a mitigation strategy. However, most training research in manufacturing has prioritized the effectiveness of a technology for training, rather than how training design influences motivation and engagement, key to training success and longevity. The current study explored how training workers using an AI system affected their motivation, engagement, and skill acquisition. Specifically, we manipulated the level of automation of decision selection of an AI used for the training of 102 participants for a quality control task. Findings indicated that fully automated decision selection negatively impacted perceived autonomy, self-determined motivation, behavioral task engagement, and skill acquisition during training. Conversely, partially automated AI-enhanced motivation and engagement, enabling participants to better adapt to AI failure by developing necessary skills. The results suggest that involving workers in decision-making during training, using AI as a decision aid rather than a decision selector, yields more positive outcomes. This approach ensures that the human aspect of manufacturing work is not overlooked, maintaining a balance between technological advancement and human skill development, motivation, and engagement. These findings can be applied to enhance real-world manufacturing practices by designing training programs that better develop operators’ technical, methodological, and personal skills, though companies may face challenges in allocating substantial resources for training redevelopment and continuously adapting these programs to keep pace with evolving technology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.351 · 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