Capturing mood dynamics through adolescent smartphone social communication.
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
= 16.49, 73.5% female) with a wide range of depression severity. Participants completed daily mood ratings across a 90-day period, during which 354,278 messages were passively collected from social communication apps. Greater positive sentiment (i.e., more positive weighted composite valence score and a greater proportion of words expressing positive sentiment) predicted more positive next-day mood, controlling for previous-day mood. Moreover, greater proportions of positive and negative sentiment were, respectively, associated with lower anhedonia and greater dysphoria symptoms measured at baseline. Exploratory analyses of nonaffective linguistic features showed that greater use of social engagement words (e.g., friends and affiliation) and emojis (primarily consisting of hearts) predicted more positive changes in mood. Collectively, findings suggest that language from smartphone social communication can detect mood fluctuations in adolescents, laying the foundation for language-based tools to identify periods of heightened depression risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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