Explainable Zero-Shot Modelling of Clinical Depression Symptoms from Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We focus on exploring various approaches of Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) and their explainability for a challenging yet important supervised learning task, notorious for training data scarcity, i.e. Depression Symptoms Detection (DSD) from text. We start with a comprehensive synthesis of different components of our ZSL modelling and analysis of our ground truth samples and Depression symptom clues curation process with the help of a practicing Clinician. We next analyze the accuracy of various state-of-the-art ZSL models and their potential enhancements for our task. Further, we sketch a framework for the use of ZSL for hierarchical text-based explanation mechanism, which we call, Syntax Tree-Guided Semantic Explanation (STEP). Finally, we summarize experiments from which we conclude that we can use ZSL models and achieve reasonable accuracy and explainability, measured by a proposed Explainability Index (EI). This work is, to our knowledge, the first work to exhaustively explore the efficacy of ZSL models for DSD task, both in terms of accuracy and explainability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".