Personalized Wellbeing Prediction using Behavioral, Physiological and Weather Data
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
We built and compared several machine learning models to predict future self-reported wellbeing labels (of mood, health, and stress) for next day and for up to 7 days in the future, using multi-modal data. The data are from surveys, wearables, mobile phones and weather information collected in a study from college students, each providing daily data for 30 or 90 days. We compared the performance of multiple models, including personalized multi-task models and deep learning models. The best personalized multi-task linear model showed mean absolute errors of 12.8, 11.9, and 13.7 on a continuous-100 pt scale for estimating next days mood, health, and stress value, while the best multi-task neural network model, applied to 3-way high/med/low classification of the wellbeing values showed F1 scores of 0.71, 0.74, and 0.66 on mood, health, and stress metrics, respectively. We found that features related to weather, and morning academic activities are strongly associated with wellbeing labels. We further found greater prediction accuracy among participants with the least fluctuations in their wellbeing labels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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