Misuse of Diagnostic Aids in Process Control: The Effects of Automation Misses on Complacency and Automation Bias: (578262012-006)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Training in which people are confronted with system errors or erroneous automated decisions can help them to become better at identifying these errors when later acting on the real system.
“For instance, training in which people are confronted with system errors or erroneous automated decisions can help them to become better at identifying these errors when later acting on the real system [2].”
From On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 2
- Authors
- Bahner, J. E., Elepfandt, M. F., & Manzey, D.
- ORCID
- Manzey, Dietrich
- Venue
- PsycEXTRA Dataset
- Published
- 2008
- OpenAlex
- W4240362554
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2019: 1
- Type
- dataset
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PsycEXTRA Dataset (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
- Keywords
- diagnostic aids, process control, automation, automation bias, complacency, human error, human-automation interaction, operator decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
