Reasoning about ideal interruptible moments: A soft computing implementation of an interruption classifier in free-form task environments
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
Current trends in society and technology make the concept of interruption a central human computer interaction problem. In this work, a novel soft computing implementation for an Interruption Classifier was designed, developed and evaluated that draws from a user model and real-time observations of the user's actions as s/he works on computer-based tasks to determine ideal times to interact with the user. This research is timely as the number of interruptions people experience daily has grown considerably over the last decade. Thus, systems are needed to manage interruptions by reasoning about ideal timings of interactions. This research shows: (1) the classifier incorporates a user model in its’ reasoning process. Most of the research in this area has focused on task-based contextual information when designing systems that reason about interruptions; (2) the classifier performed at 96% accuracy in experimental test scenarios and significantly outperformed other comparable systems; (3) the classifier is implemented using an advanced machine learning technology—an Adaptive Neural-Fuzzy Inference System—this is unique since all other systems use Bayesian Networks or other machine learning tools; (4) the classifier does not require any direct user involvement—in other systems, users must provide interruption annotations while reviewing video sessions so the system can learn; and (5) a promising direction for reasoning about interruptions for free-form tasks–this is largely an unsolved problem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it