Comparing the Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms in the Automatic Classification of Psychotherapeutic Interactions in Avatar Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Avatar Therapy (AT) is currently being studied to help patients suffering from treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Facilitating annotations of immersive verbatims in AT by using classification algorithms could be an interesting avenue to reduce the time and cost of conducting such analysis and adding objective quantitative data in the classification of the different interactions taking place during the therapy. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of machine learning algorithms in the automatic annotation of immersive session verbatims of AT. (2) Methods: Five machine learning algorithms were implemented over a dataset as per the Scikit-Learn library: Support vector classifier, Linear support vector classifier, Multinomial Naïve Bayes, Decision Tree, and Multi-layer perceptron classifier. The dataset consisted of the 27 different types of interactions taking place in AT for the Avatar and the patient for 35 patients who underwent eight immersive sessions as part of their treatment in AT. (3) Results: The Linear SVC performed best over the dataset as compared with the other algorithms with the highest accuracy score, recall score, and F1-Score. The regular SVC performed best for precision. (4) Conclusions: This study presented an objective method for classifying textual interactions based on immersive session verbatims and gave a first comparison of multiple machine learning algorithms on AT.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".