Optimizing for Happiness and Productivity: Modeling Opportune Moments for Transitions and Breaks at Work
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
Information workers perform jobs that demand constant multitasking, leading to context switches, productivity loss, stress, and unhappiness. Systems that can mediate task transitions and breaks have the potential to keep people both productive and happy. We explore a crucial initial step for this goal: finding opportune moments to recommend transitions and breaks without disrupting people during focused states. Using affect, workstation activity, and task data from a three-week field study (N=25), we build models to predict whether a person should continue their task, transition to a new task, or take a break. The R-squared values of our models are as high as 0.7, with only 15% error cases. We ask users to evaluate the timing of recommendations provided by a recommender that relies on these models. Our study shows that users find our transition and break recommendations to be well-timed, rating them as 86% and 77% accurate, respectively. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for intelligent systems that seek to guide task transitions and manage interruptions at work.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it