MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412425677 · doi:10.3390/app15147820

An Interface Design Method Based on Situation Awareness and Immersive Analytics for Augmented and Mixed Reality Decision Support Systems in Construction

2025· article· en· W4412425677 on OpenAlexaff
Ernesto Pillajo, Claudio Mourgues, Andrés Neyem, Vicente A. González

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
KeywordsAugmented realityComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionMixed realityAnalyticsData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) demonstrated their potential to support decision-making in construction. However, most efforts emphasized technological advancements, often overlooking how to present and interact with information to effectively support decision-making in AR/MR environments. This study proposes an interface design method that integrates situation awareness (SA) and immersive analytics (IA), two complementary frameworks that address user information needs and immersive interaction design. The method guides the design of AR/MR interfaces by aligning information content, presentation, and interaction with SA requirements and IA design principles. To evaluate its effectiveness, the method was applied to develop AR and MR interface prototypes for a simulated decision-making task involving field managers during indoor construction activities of high-rise construction projects. Results show high levels of SA achieved by participants, with no statistically significant differences between AR and MR interfaces, demonstrating the method’s effectiveness to support SA in both environments. The proposed method provides a structured approach for designing immersive interfaces that enable better perception, comprehension, and projection in dynamic construction scenarios. Moreover, it provides designers with practical guidance for interface development and allows practitioners to assess existing AR/MR solutions based on their capacity to enhance SA through IA.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.371 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueApplied SciencesSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207