Identifying and describing information seeking tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A software developer works on many tasks per day, frequently switching between these tasks back and forth. This constant churn of tasks makes it difficult for a developer to know the specifics of when they worked on what task, complicating task resumption, planning, retrospection, and reporting activities. In a first step towards an automated aid to this issue, we introduce a new approach to help identify the topic of work during an information seeking task --- one of the most common types of tasks that software developers face --- that is based on capturing the contents of the developer's active window at regular intervals and creating a vector representation of key information the developer viewed. To evaluate our approach, we created a data set with multiple developers working on the same set of six information seeking tasks that we also make available for other researchers to investigate similar approaches. Our analysis shows that our approach enables: 1) segments of a developer's work to be automatically associated with a task from a known set of tasks with average accuracy of 70.6%, and 2) a word cloud describing a segment of work that a developer can use to recognize a task with average accuracy of 67.9%.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".