The Most Effective Interventions for Classification Model Development to Predict Chat Outcomes Based on the Conversation Content in Online Suicide Prevention Chats: Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the provision of optimal care in a suicide prevention helpline, it is important to know what contributes to positive or negative effects on help seekers. Helplines can often be contacted through text-based chat services, which produce large amounts of text data for use in large-scale analysis. OBJECTIVE: We trained a machine learning classification model to predict chat outcomes based on the content of the chat conversations in suicide helplines and identified the counsellor utterances that had the most impact on its outputs. METHODS: From August 2021 until January 2023, help seekers (N=6903) scored themselves on factors known to be associated with suicidality (eg, hopelessness, feeling entrapped, will to live) before and after a chat conversation with the suicide prevention helpline in the Netherlands (113 Suicide Prevention). Machine learning text analysis was used to predict help seeker scores on these factors. Using 2 approaches for interpreting machine learning models, we identified text messages from helpers in a chat that contributed the most to the prediction of the model. RESULTS: According to the machine learning model, helpers' positive affirmations and expressing involvement contributed to improved scores of the help seekers. Use of macros and ending the chat prematurely due to the help seeker being in an unsafe situation had negative effects on help seekers. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals insights for improving helpline chats, emphasizing the value of an evocative style with questions, positive affirmations, and practical advice. It also underscores the potential of machine learning in helpline chat analysis.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".