Crew Communication as a Factor in Aviation Accidents

The crew communication process is analyzed. Planning and explanation are shown to be well-structured discourse types, described by formal rules. These formal rules are integrated with those describing the other most important discourse type within the cockpit: the command-and-control speech act chain. The latter is described as a sequence of speech acts for making requests (including orders and suggestions), for making reports, for supporting or challenging statements, and for acknowledging previous speech acts. Mitigation level, a linguistic indication of indirectness and tentativeness in speech, was an important variable in several hypotheses, i.e., the speech of subordinates is more mitigated than the speech of superiors, the speech of all crewmembers is less mitigated when they know that they are in either a problem or emergency situation, and mitigation is a factor in failures of crewmembers to initiate discussion of new topics or have suggestions ratified by the captain. Test results also show that planning and explanation are more frequently performed by captains, are done more during crew- recognized problems, and are done less during crew-recognized emergencies. The test results also indicated that planning and explanation are more frequently performed by captains than by other crewmembers, are done more during crew-recognized problems, and are done less during-recognized emergencies

Formal Methods and Social Context in Software Development

Formal methods have not been accepted to the extent for which many computing scientists hoped. This paper explores some reasons for that fact, and proposes some ways to make progress. One major problem has been that formal methods have not taken sufficient account of the social context of computer systems. For example, social context causes a continuous evolution of requirements for large complex systems. This implies that designs, specifications and code must also evolve with requirements, and that traceability is important. We discuss a traceability technique called hyper-requirements. To better understand social context, we discuss ethnomethodology, a branch of sociology, and situated abstract data types, which help bridge the gap between the technical and the social. These attempt to provide a scientific basis for requirements capture. Some case studies are briefly described. We distinguish between small, large and huge grain formal methods, arguing that small grain methods do not scale up. This motivates our discussions of software composition and a new paradigm of "Domain Specific Formal Methods.

Knowledge based systems: A preliminary survey of selected issues and techniques

It is only recently that research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) is accomplishing practical results. Most of these results can be attributed to the design and use of expert systems (or Knowledge-Based Systems, KBS) - problem-solving computer programs that can reach a level of performance comparable to that of a human expert in some specialized problem domain. But many computer systems designed to see images, hear sounds, and recognize speech are still in a fairly early stage of development. In this report, a preliminary survey of recent work in the KBS is reported, explaining KBS concepts and issues and techniques used to construct them. Application considerations to construct the KBS and potential KBS research areas are identified. A case study (MYCIN) of a KBS is also provided

An analysis of the requirements traceability problem

In this paper1, we investigate and discuss the underlying nature of the requirements traceability problem. Our work is based on empirical studies, involving over 100 practitioners, and an evaluation of current support. We introduce the distinction between pre-requirements specification (pre-RS) traceability and post-requirements specification (post-RS) traceability, to demonstrate why an all-encompassing solution to the problem is unlikely, and to provide a framework through which to understand its multifaceted nature. We report how the majority of the problems attributed to poor requirements traceability are due to inadequate pre-RS traceability and show the fundamental need for improvements here. In the remainder of the paper, we present an analysis of the main barriers confronting such improvements in practice, identify relevant areas in which advances have been (or can be) made, and make recommendations for research

Philosophical perspectives on the stigma of mental illness

This thesis is concerned with philosophical perspectives on the stigma of mental illness, with each chapter exploring different philosophical issues. Chapter one delineates the central concept around which the rest of the work revolves: the stigma of mental illness. It provides an outline of the stigma mechanism, how it applies to mental illness, why it is such a large public health concern and what has been done so far to combat it. Chapter two is concerned with the application of recent literature in the philosophy of implicit bias to the topic of mental illness. It suggests that we have hitherto been preoccupied with explicit formulations of the stigma mechanism, but argues that there are distinctive issues involved in combatting forms of discrimination in which the participants are not cognisant of their attitudes or actions, and that anti-stigma initiatives for mental illness should take note. Chapter three applies the philosophical literature concerning the ethics of our epistemic practices to the stigma of mental illness. It contains an analysis of how epistemic injustice- primarily in the forms of testimonial injustice and stereotype threat- affects those with mental illnesses. The fourth chapter brings in issues in the philosophy of science (particularly the philosophy of psychiatry) to explore the possibility of intervening on the stigma process to halt the stigma of mental illness. The first candidate (preventing labelling) is discounted, and the second (combatting stereotype) is tentatively endorsed. The fifth chapter is concerned with how language facilitates the stigma of mental illness. It suggests that using generics to talk about mental illness (whether the knowledge structure conveyed is inaccurate or accurate) is deeply problematic. In the former, it conveys insidious forms of social stereotyping. In the latter, it propagates misinformation by presenting the category as a quintessential one