The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Real-time task recognition based on knowledge workers' computer activities
Open accessAbstract
Motivation -- Supporting knowledge workers in their self-management by providing them overviews of performed tasks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Koldijk et al. found that prediction of task types is very individual and that a general classifier does not work well.
“The results of a field study with 11 researchers and an average of 10 hours of data per participant shows that the prediction is very individual and that a general classifier does not work well.”
From Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
The Generalizability of the Classifiers section reports that a model trained on several users performed only 20–30% on a new user, supporting the conclusion that a general classifier does not work well. The Participants section identifies 11 knowledge workers, but our copy does not identify them as researchers or substantiate the stated average of 10 hours of data per participant. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOnly very little prior work exists on automatically detecting, characterizing and summarizing developers' tasks.
“We have been able to find only very little work on automatically detecting, characterizing and summarizing (developers) tasks yet [22], [32], [33].”
From Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes automatic recognition of knowledge workers’ tasks as a new research domain, and the paper presents a system that recognizes tasks and provides overviews. This supports the citation as an example of related work, but our copy does not establish that the participants were developers or that very little work existed on detecting, characterizing, and summarizing developers’ tasks specifically. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMost of our task type categories are consistent with previous work that investigated knowledge workers' tasks.
“Most of our task type categories are consistent with previous work that investigated knowledge workers' tasks [32], [60], [61], [62].”
From Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The WEKA data mining software: an update
Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., & Witten, I. H. (2009) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1656274.1656278 · Cited by 17,750
Talking about tactile experiences
Obrist, M., Seah, S. A., & Subramanian, S. (2013) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2466220 · Cited by 1,634
A diary study of task switching and interruptions
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985715 · Cited by 830
Tahboub, K. A. (2006) · Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems · doi:10.1007/s10846-005-9018-0 · Cited by 144
THE EFFECTS OF SELF‐MONITORING AND SUPERVISOR FEEDBACK ON STAFF PERFORMANCE IN A RESIDENTIAL SETTING
Richman, G. S., Riordan, M. R., Reiss, M. L., Pyles, D. A. M., & Bailey, J. S. (1988) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.1988.21-401 · Cited by 127
Self-observation as an agent of behavioral change
Johnson, S. M., & White, G. D. (1971) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(71)80095-3 · Cited by 127
A New Model of Plan RecognitionPreprint
Goldman, R. P., Geib, C., & Miller, C. A. (2013) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.6700 · Cited by 120
Towards a Bayesian Model for Keyhole Plan Recognition in Large Domains
Albrecht, D. W., Zukerman, I., Nicholson, A. E., et al. (1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-2670-7_37 · Cited by 73
Rath, A., Devaurs, D., & Lindstaedt, S. (2009) · doi:10.1145/1552262.1552270 · Cited by 56
Logical Hierarchical Hidden Markov Models for Modeling User Activities
Natarajan, S., Bui, H., Tadepalli, P. V., Kersting, K., & Wong, W. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85928-4_17 · Cited by 37
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming
Cussens, J., & Frisch, A. M. (2000) · Cited by 20
Unobtrusively Measuring Stress and Workload of Knowledge Workers
Koldijk, S., Neerincx, & Kraaij, W. (2012) · TNO Repository · Cited by 7
Self-citationActivity-logging for self-coaching of knowledge workers
Koldijk, S., van Staalduinen, M., Raaijmakers, S. A., van Rooij, I. J. E. I., & Kraaij, W. (2011) · Radboud Repository (Radboud University) · Cited by 5
Self-citationLook what you've done! Task recognition based on PC activities
Koldijk, S. (2011) · TNO Repository · Cited by 2
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.5555/2073796.2073824 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types
Meyer, A. N., Satterfield, C., Zuger, M., Kevic, K., Murphy, G. C., Zimmermann, T., & Fritz, T. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2020.2984086 · Cited by 14
“…of the mouse per second [46] 6.8% 8.7% 13.5% Mouse scrolled distance (1) : total scrolled distance (in pixels) of the mouse per second [22], [32] 4.7% 5.0% 8.2% Application Category Features 29.4% 34.3% NA Switch to/from specific application category (26) : switch to/from a specific…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Koldijk, S., van Staalduinen, M., Neerincx, M., & Kraaij, W.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- TNO, The Netherlands
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 30th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-08-28
- Pages
- 152-159
- OpenAlex
- W2048597225
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- resolver.tno.nl
- Locations
- European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
- TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
- Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- task identification, knowledge workers, self-management, real-time monitoring, user behavior analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
