Taking Search to Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of tasks in information retrieval (IR) has been long argued for, addressed in different ways, often ignored, and frequently revisited. For decades, scholars made a case for the role that a user’s task plays in how and why that user engages in search and what a search system should do to assist. But for the most part, the IR community has been too focused on query processing and assuming a search task to be a collection of user queries, often ignoring if or how such an assumption addresses the users accomplishing their tasks. With emerging areas of conversational agents and proactive IR, understanding and addressing users’ tasks has become more important than ever before. In this paper, we provide various perspectives on where the state-of-the-art is with regard to tasks in IR, what are some of the bottlenecks in deriving and using task information, and how do we go forward from here. In addition to covering relevant literature, the paper provides a synthesis of historical and current perspectives on understanding, extracting, and addressing task-focused search. To ground ongoing and future research in this area, we present a new framing device for tasks using a tree-like structure and various moves on that structure that allow different interpretations and applications. Presented as a combination of synthesis of ideas and past works, proposals for future research, and our perspectives on technical, social, and ethical considerations, this paper is meant to help revitalize the interest and future work in task-based IR.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".