MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413835134 · doi:10.1177/10711813251367751

Augmented Cognition Meets AI: Enhancing Human Performance with Real-Time, Adaptive, and Trustworthy Intelligence

2025· article· en· W4413835134 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Hildebrandt, Shuchisnigdha Deb, Xiaoyun Yin, Jackie Cha, Heejin Jeong

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Justice CanadaDivision of Information and Intelligent SystemsU.S. Department of JusticeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTrustworthinessCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive sciencePsychologyComputer securityNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This panel explores how advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are transforming the field of augmented cognition (AC). Traditionally focused on adapting system behavior based on user state, augmented cognition is now expanding into new territory with AI technologies that can sense, interpret, and respond in real time. Emerging AI (e.g., large language models, multimodal machine learning, and generative agents) enables new modes of measurement, prediction, and interaction for AI-based augmented cognition. Panelists will highlight how AC systems differ from earlier automation approaches, offering examples from diverse application domains. Use cases include AI copilots that monitor driver fatigue and distraction, adaptive digital teammates that guide workers through complex tasks, and cognitive assistants that support rapid decision- making in high-pressure environments. The conversation will address key design considerations such as the level of human involvement, how to calibrate interaction, and what AI capabilities are still needed. They will also examine critical implementation challenges, including data privacy, cybersecurity, user trust, and ethical concerns. As AI increasingly acts as a synthetic collaborator, the panel will consider how augmented cognition is defined and applied. They will identify research gaps, propose future directions, and explore how human-AI systems can enhance safety, performance, and decision-making across complex domains.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207