Detecting defense mechanisms from Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) transcripts using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Defensive functioning (i.e., unconscious process used to manage real or perceived threats) may play a role in the development of various psychopathologies. It is typically assessed via observer rating measures, however, human coding of defensive functioning is resource-intensive and time-consuming. The purpose of this study was to develop a machine learning approach to automate coding of defense mechanisms from interview transcripts. METHOD: = 66). We trained and evaluated five RoBERTa-based models to detect the presence of defenses in 16,785 interviewer-participant talk-turn pairs nested within 192 interviews. A model detected the presence of any defense, while four additional models detected the most common defenses in this sample (repression, intellectualization, reaction formation, undoing). RESULTS: The models were capable of distinguishing defenses (ROC-AUC .82-.90) but were not proficient enough to warrant replacing human coders (PR-AUC .28-.60). Follow-up analysis was performed to assess other practical uses of these models. DISCUSSION: Our machine learning models could be used to assist coders. Future research should conduct a deployment study to determine if human coding of defense mechanisms can be expedited using machine learning models.
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 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".