MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ensemble Methods to Optimize Automated Text Classification in Avatar Therapy

2024· article· en· W4391598858 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMedInformatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-PinelUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
FundersOtsuka Canada PharmaceuticalCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsAvatarComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Human–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Psychotherapeutic approaches such as Avatar Therapy (AT) are novel therapeutic attempts to help patients diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Qualitative analyses of immersive sessions of AT have been undertaken to enhance and refine the existing interventions taking place in this therapy. To account for the time-consuming and costly nature and potential misclassification biases, prior implementation of a Linear Support Vector Classifier provided helpful insight. Single model implementation for text classification is often limited, especially for datasets containing imbalanced data. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the change in accuracy of automated text classification machine learning algorithms when using an ensemble approach for immersive session verbatims of AT. Methods: An ensemble model, comprising five machine learning algorithms, was implemented to conduct text classification for avatar and patient interactions. The models included in this study are: Multinomial Naïve Bayes, Linear Support Vector Classifier, Multi-layer perceptron classifier, XGBClassifier and the K-Nearest-Neighbor model. Accuracy, precision, recall and f1-score were compared for the individual classifiers and the ensemble model. Results: The ensemble model performed better than its individual counterparts for accuracy. Conclusion: Using an ensemble methodological approach, this methodology might be employed in future research to provide insight into the interactions being categorized and the therapeutical outcome of patients based on their experience with AT with optimal precision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.383 · 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