Design Implications for One-Way Text Messaging Services that Support Psychological Wellbeing
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
One-way text messaging services have the potential to support psychological wellbeing at scale without conversational partners. However, there is limited understanding of what challenges are faced in mapping interactions typically done face-to-face or via online interactive resources into a text messaging medium. To explore this design space, we developed seven text messages inspired by cognitive behavioral therapy. We then conducted an open-ended survey with 788 undergraduate students and follow-up interviews with students and clinical psychologists to understand how people perceived these messages and the factors they anticipated would drive their engagement. We leveraged those insights to revise our messages, after which we deployed our messages via a technology probe to 11 students for two weeks. Through our mixed-methods approach, we highlight challenges and opportunities for future text messaging services, such as the importance of concrete suggestions and flexible pre-scheduled message timing.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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