TaskView: design and evaluation of a task-based email interface
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Email was originally designed as a tool for asynchronous communication. However, as the number of messages increased, so did their variety. A wide range of new and unforeseen email tasks reflects this variety. One of the most commonly performed activities in email is management of pending tasks. This research focuses on how to support this activity in email and explores solutions that use different external representations of messages and associated tasks. Central to this research is understanding the role of both external artifacts in managing multiple pending tasks, as well as internal representations and processes and how they can be linked to external representations. In a recent study we compared the effects of two email interfaces (Microsoft Outlook Inbox and TimeStore-TaskView) on efficiency and effectiveness of information finding in email messages. We found that TimeStore-TaskView interface was overall faster for finding information related to task dates, time and task overviews, while the Inbox interface was faster for finding information from subject lines, senders or from the message body. Based on the results from the study, we are in the process of designing a modified email prototype and a follow-up user study.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it