Update Delivery Mechanisms for Prospective Information Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time summarization systems that monitor document streams to identify relevant content have a few options for delivering system updates to users. In a mobile context, systems could send push notifications to users' mobile devices, hoping to grab their attention immediately. Alternatively, systems could silently deposit updates into "inboxes" that users can access at their leisure. We refer to these mechanisms as push-based vs. pull-based, and present a two-year contrastive study that attempts to understand the effects of the delivery mechanism on mobile user behavior, in the context of the TREC Real-Time Summarization Tracks. Through a cluster analysis, we are able to identify three distinct and coherent patterns of behavior. As expected, we find that users are likely to ignore push notifications, but for those updates that users do pay attention to, content is consumed within a short amount of time. Interestingly, users bombarded with push notifications are less likely to consume updates on their own initiative and less likely to engage in long reading sessions---which is a common pattern for users who pull content from their inboxes. We characterize users as exhibiting "eager" or "apathetic" information consumption behavior as an explanation of these observations, and attempt to operationalize our findings into design recommendations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".