MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620864821 · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14942

Recognizing Pathogenic Empathy in Social Media

2017· article· en· W2620864821 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, Anneke Buffone, Hao Peng, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Lyle Ungar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathySocial mediaBurnoutPsychologySet (abstract data type)Health careSocial psychologyClinical psychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empathy is an integral part of human social life, as people care about and for others who experience adversity. However, a specific “pathogenic” form of empathy, marked by automatic contagion of negative emotions, can lead to stress and burnout. This is particularly detrimental for individuals in caregiving professions who experience empathic states more frequently, because it can result in illness and high costs for health systems. Automatically recognizing pathogenic empathy from text is potentially valuable to identify at-risk individuals and monitor burnout risk in caregiving populations. We build a model to predict this type of empathy from social media language on a data set we collected of users’ Facebook posts and their answers to a new questionnaire measuring empathy. We obtain promising results in identifying individuals' empathetic states from their social media (Pearson r = 0.252, p <0.003).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social MediaSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207