MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415757206 · doi:10.2196/78657

Detecting Perceived Unfair Treatment Among US College Students Using Mobile Sensing: Pilot Machine Learning Study

2025· article· en· W4415757206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yiyi Ren, Raghu Mulukutla, Jennifer Mankoff, Anind K. Dey

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMobile deviceMental healthmHealthMobile technologyMobile apps

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Experiences of unfair treatment on college campuses are linked to adverse mental and physical health outcomes, highlighting the need for interventions. However, detecting such experiences relies mainly on self-reports. No prior research has examined the feasibility of using mobile sensing via smartphones and wearables for the passive detection of these experiences. Objective This pilot study explores the potential of using passive sensing to detect daily experiences of perceived unfair treatment (PUT) after they occur. It aims to develop and evaluate machine learning models against naive baselines and establish a benchmark for future research. Methods We analyzed data from 201 undergraduate students collected over two 10-week academic terms in 2018. PUT was self-reported at the daily level via ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys, with 413 of 9629 (4.3%) total responses indicating unfair treatment. We implemented two modeling approaches with distinct training schemes: (1) supervised classification models trained in a user-independent manner using data from different individuals, and (2) anomaly detection models trained in a user-dependent manner using historical data from the same individuals. Classification performance was assessed using stratified group 5-fold cross-validation for user-independent models and a chronological train-test split for user-dependent models. Results Of the 201 study participants, 110 reported experiencing unfair treatment at least once. On average, participants reported unfair treatment in 4.66% of their EMA responses (95% CI 3.13% to 6.19%). User-independent classification models showed mixed performance (AUC-ROC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve]: 0.546-0.640, AUC-PR [area under the precision-recall curve]: 0.047-0.093, F1-score: 0.070-0.121). Tree-based models, particularly light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) and Random Forest, outperformed all 3 baselines in AUC-ROC and AUC-PR; LightGBM also improved the F1-score. In comparison, user-dependent anomaly detection models performed better, with the multiday long short-term memory-AE model (50 features, 7-day window) achieving the highest recall (0.830, +73.3%, P<.001) and F1-score (0.391, +24.9%, P<.001) without reducing precision (0.256), and improving AUC-PR by 45.9% and AUC-ROC by 21.6% relative to naive baselines (P<.001). Feature importance analysis identified key behavioral patterns for population-level detection, including increased time spent off campus, elevated evening and nighttime activity, reduced indoor mobility on campus, prolonged screen use, delayed sleep onset, and shorter sleep duration. Conclusions Mobile sensing shows promise for detecting daily experiences of PUT in college students and identifying associated behavioral patterns. Our findings highlight opportunities for timely interventions through mobile technology to mitigate the impact of these experiences on students’ mental health and well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.407 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→