Basic Analysis of Calls from Suzhou Psychological Aid Hotline from 2010 to 2020
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
Objective: Through analyzing the data and content of incoming calls from Suzhou psychological aid hotline from 2010 to 2020, this paper summarizes the hotline service situation and its development trend year by year, and understands the specific situation of hotline work and the demands of hotline callers. Methods: 25356 calls from Suzhou psychological assistance hotline from January 2010 to November 2020 were selected as the research objects. According to the data type, time and basic demographic information, the data were classified. Quantitative statistics and data analysis were used to analyze and study the data by SPSS. Results: 1. The main types of calls were mental and psychological (33.6%), followed by love (13.19%) and marriage and family problems (11.05%). 2. More electricity came from women (12,694 times) than from men (12,662 times); 3. There is seasonal fluctuation in the incoming electricity from the hotline, which is higher in the first and fourth quarters and less in the second and third quarters. Conclusion: Psychological hotline problems mainly focus on mental psychology, love, marriage and family problems, Incoming electricity has gender and seasonal differences and fluctuations, especially gender roles have an impact on the psychological troubles of visitors. Operators need to have professional knowledge in the above aspects and properly use the gender framework to provide psychological counseling and analysis to callers.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 it