Detecting Developers’ Task Switches and Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developers work on a broad variety of tasks during their workdays and constantly switch between them. While these task switches can be beneficial, they can also incur a high cognitive burden on developers, since they have to continuously remember and rebuild the task context–the artifacts and applications relevant to the task. Researchers have therefore proposed to capture task context more explicitly and use it to provide better task support, such as task switch reduction or task resumption support. Yet, these approaches generally require the developer tomanuallyidentify task switches. Automatic approaches for predicting task switches have so far been limited in their accuracy, scope, evaluation, and the time discrepancy between predicted and actual task switches. In our work, we examine the use ofautomaticallycollected computer interaction data for detecting developers’ task switches as well as task types. In two field studies–a 4h observational study and a multi-day study with experience sampling–we collected data from a total of 25 professional developers. Our study results show that we are able to use temporal and semantic features from developers’ computer interaction data to detect task switches and types in the field with high accuracy of 84 percent and 61 percent respectively, and within a short time window of less than 1.6 minutes on average from the actual task switch. We discuss our findings and their practical value for a wide range of applications in real work settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".