Reliability Analysis of Psychological Concept Extraction and Classification in User-Penned Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social NLP research community witness a recent surge in the computational advancements of mental health analysis to build responsible AI models for a complex interplay between language use and self-perception. Such responsible AI models aid in quantifying the psychological concepts from user-penned texts on social media. On thinking beyond the low-level (classification) task, we advance the existing binary classification dataset, towards a higher-level task of reliability analysis through the lens of explanations, posing it as one of the safety measures. We annotate the LoST dataset to capture nuanced textual cues that suggest the presence of low self-esteem in the posts of Reddit users. We further state that the NLP models developed for determining the presence of low self-esteem, focus more on three types of textual cues: (i) Trigger: words that triggers mental disturbance, (ii) LoST indicators: text indicators emphasizing low self-esteem, and (iii) Consequences: words describing the consequences of mental disturbance. We implement existing classifiers to examine the attention mechanism in pre-trained language models (PLMs) for a domain-specific psychology-grounded task. Our findings suggest the need of shifting the focus of PLMs from Trigger and Consequences to a more comprehensive explanation, emphasizing LoST indicators while determining low self-esteem in Reddit posts.
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 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".