Estimation of Psychological Distress in Japanese Youth Through Narrative Writing: Text-Based Stylometric and Sentiment Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internalizing mental illnesses associated with psychological distress are often underdetected. Text-based detection using natural language processing (NLP) methods is increasingly being used to complement conventional detection efforts. However, these approaches often rely on self-disclosure through autobiographical narratives that may not always be possible, especially in the context of the collectivistic Japanese culture. OBJECTIVE: We propose the use of narrative writing as an alternative resource for mental illness detection in youth. Accordingly, in this study, we investigated the textual characteristics of narratives written by youth with psychological distress; our research focuses on the detection of psychopathological tendencies in written imaginative narratives. METHODS: Using NLP tools such as stylometric measures and lexicon-based sentiment analysis, we examined short narratives from 52 Japanese youth (mean age 19.8 years, SD 3.1) obtained through crowdsourcing. Participants wrote a short narrative introduction to an imagined story before completing a questionnaire to quantify their tendencies toward psychological distress. Based on this score, participants were categorized into higher distress and lower distress groups. The written narratives were then analyzed using NLP tools and examined for between-group differences. Although outside the scope of this study, we also carried out a supplementary analysis of narratives written by adults using the same procedure. RESULTS: Youth demonstrating higher tendencies toward psychological distress used significantly more positive (happiness-related) words, revealing differences in valence of the narrative content. No other significant differences were observed between the high and low distress groups. CONCLUSIONS: Youth with tendencies toward mental illness were found to write more positive stories that contained more happiness-related terms. These results may potentially have widespread implications on psychological distress screening on online platforms, particularly in cultures such as Japan that are not accustomed to self-disclosure. Although the mechanisms that we propose in explaining our results are speculative, we believe that this interpretation paves the way for future research in online surveillance and detection efforts.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".