Creating Better Action Plans for Writing Tasks via Vocabulary-Based Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While having a step-by-step breakdown for a task-an action plan-helps people complete tasks, prior work has shown that people prefer not to make action plans for their own tasks. Getting planning support from others could be beneficial, but it is limited by how much domain knowledge people have about the task and how available they are. Our goal is to incorporate the benefits of having action plans in the complex domain of writing, while mitigating the time and effort costs of creating plans. To mitigate these costs, we introduce a vocabulary-a finite set of functions pertaining to writing tasks-as a cognitive scaffold that enables people with necessary context (e.g. collaborators) to generate action plans for others. We develop this vocabulary by analyzing 264 comments, and compare plans created using it with those created without any aid, in an online study with 768 comments (N=145) and a lab study with 96 comments (N=8). We show that using a vocabulary reduces planning time and effort and improves plan quality compared to unstructured planning, and opens the door for automation and task sharing for complex tasks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".