MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283160293 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.898609

Analysis of Educational Mental Health and Emotion Based on Deep Learning and Computational Intelligence Optimization

2022· article· en· W4283160293 on OpenAlexaff
Junli Liu, Haoyuan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessEmotional intelligencePsychologyMental healthSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceFunction (biology)Field (mathematics)Stability (learning theory)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceApplied psychologyMachine learningSocial psychologyAngerPsychotherapistMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding students' psychological pressure and bad emotional reaction can solve psychological problems as soon as possible and avoid affecting students' normal study life. With the improvement of global scientific and technological strength, and the step-by-step in-depth research on deep learning and computational intelligence optimization. Now, we have enough conditions to build a psychological and emotional data set for the field of education, and build a mental health stress detection model with emotional analysis function. In addition, a variety of experimental methods are used for comparison, which shows the superior performance of the model in practical application scenarios. The results show that: (1) the data set constructed for the model is reasonable. Psychological stress test shows that the tested college students are in good health and have no positive performance. Schools need to pay special attention to obsessive-compulsive disorder and interpersonal sensitivity, and the average values of both indicators are higher than 0.9. (2) For the optimization of ant colony algorithm (ACO) computational intelligence, both the stability and the average execution time of the algorithm are obviously higher than those of other algorithms. This model has obvious performance advantages after using this algorithm. (3) Using loss function value to measure the difference between simulated emotion analysis and real value. The difference of most emotion tests is less than 3%; the accuracy difference between sadness and fear is about 7%. Although the final results prove the feasibility of this method, there are still some shortcomings to be optimized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→