Focused Time Saves Nine: Evaluating Computer–Assisted Protected Time for Hybrid Information 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 often struggle to balance their time for a variety of activities like focused work, communication, and caring. This study analyzes the impact of a commercially available computer-assisted time protection intervention that automatically and preemptively schedules calendar time for self-determined activities. We analyzed the behaviors and self-reports of workers in two naturalistic studies. First, we studied 27 workers who were already using Computer-Assisted Protected Time (CAP time) and found that they mainly used it for focused work. Second, we analyzed the effect of CAP time as a randomized intervention on 89 workers who never had CAP time and found that those with it self-reported an increase in performance, job resources, and immersion. In both studies, workers with CAP time exhibited a rearrangement of activities leading to an overall reduction in work activity. This study highlights new opportunities for intelligent time-management interventions and the importance of protected time 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.019 |
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