MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106030195 · doi:10.1145/1135777.1135906

Using web browser interactions to predict task

2006· article· en· W2106030195 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie Kellar, Carolyn Watters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeb navigationTask (project management)Schema (genetic algorithms)CategorizationWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionWeb browserIdentification (biology)Web applicationThe InternetInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The automatic identification of a user's task has the potential to improve information filtering systems that rely on implicit measures of interest and whose effectiveness may be dependant upon the task at hand. Knowledge of a user's current task type would allow information filtering systems to apply the most useful measures of user interest. We recently conducted a field study in which we logged all participants' interactions with their web browsers and asked participants to categorize their web usage according to a high-level task schema. Using the data collected during this study, we have conducted a preliminary exploration of the usefulness of logged web browser interactions to predict users' tasks. The results of this initial analysis suggest that individual models of users' web browser interactions may be useful in predicting task type.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.130 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207