MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411471906 · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2025.3581647

Fatigue and Task Load Dependent Decision Referrals for Joint Binary Classification in Human-Automation Teams

2025· article· en· W4411471906 on OpenAlexafffund
Raihan Seraj, Jérôme Le Ny, Aditya Mahajan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Control Systems Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsTask (project management)Joint (building)AutomationComputer scienceBinary classificationBinary numberArtificial intelligenceMachine learningApplied psychologyPsychologyEngineeringSupport vector machineSystems engineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a human-automation team jointly solving binary classification tasks over multiple time stages. At each stage, the automation observes the data for a batch of classification tasks, classifies a subset of them and refers the others to the human. The human’s performance depends on task load and fatigue, where fatigue is modeled as a controlled Markov process dependent on the past task loads. We formulate the automation’s problem of deciding which tasks to refer as a Markov decision process and present a sampling-based approximate dynamic program that leverages task independence across time and the structure of the recently obtained single-stage optimal allocation policy. We then present a numerical study comparing our solution against a baseline policy that does not explicitly account for fatigue dynamics.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Control Systems LettersSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207