MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408055308 · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106078

Embedded visualizations in crane operation user interfaces for real-time assistance

2025· article· en· W4408055308 on OpenAlexaff
Jiantsen Goh, Yihai Fang, Barrett Ens

Bibliographic record

VenueAutomation in Construction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceUser interfaceComputer graphics (images)Engineering drawingOperating systemEmbedded systemEngineeringSimulationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While crane operations are becoming increasingly complex, challenges remain in creating user interfaces (UIs) that effectively support real-time decision-making and situational awareness . This paper presents a comprehensive review and evaluation of visualizations used in crane operations, focusing on user interfaces designed to enhance operator performance and safety during lifts. Through a systematic review of existing literature, this paper synthesizes key trends, design principles, and technologies in crane UIs, with a particular emphasis on the role of embedded visualizations. A tailored UI evaluation model is developed, drawing from principles in human-computer interaction and Augmented Reality (AR) design realms, to assess the efficacy of these systems in real-time operations. This review also identifies key research gaps, including the need for empirical testing of individual visualizations and comprehensive UI configurations to better understand their impact on operator performance. Overall, this paper makes valuable contributions to the field by laying the groundwork for improving both the safety and productivity of crane operations through more effective, user-centered UIs.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutomation in ConstructionSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207