Personalized Wellbeing Prediction using Behavioral, Physiological and Weather Data
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".