From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
Drawing on human-factors literature, manufacturing field evidence, and practitioner experience, the paper identifies over-reliance and under-reliance as a principal failure mode of shop-floor AI and proposes seven interface-design principles intended to calibrate operator trust.
Scope: Manufacturing shop-floor decision support in automotive and electronics settings; the abstract provides no study universe, sample size, observation period, comparison denominator, or effect estimate
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (0)
No in-corpus outgoing citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Cited by (0)
No in-corpus incoming citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Abstract-level evidence only; full text and PDFs were not inspected.
- The abstract does not define the field-evidence sources, cases, sample, period, measures, or analytic method.
- Its statement that implementation design correlates more strongly with miscalibration than model accuracy lacks a reported coefficient, denominator, or statistical test on the abstract page.
Source independence
ssrn-only