BAH Dataset for Ambivalence/Hesitancy Recognition in Videos for Digital Behavioural Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambivalence and hesitancy (A/H), closely related constructs, are the primary reasons why individuals delay, avoid, or abandon health behaviour changes. They are subtle and conflicting emotions that sets a person in a state between positive and negative orientations, or between acceptance and refusal to do something. They manifest as a discord in affect between multiple modalities or within a modality, such as facial and vocal expressions, and body language. Although experts can be trained to recognize A/H as done for in-person interactions, integrating them into digital health interventions is costly and less effective. Automatic A/H recognition is therefore critical for the personalization and cost-effectiveness of digital behaviour change interventions. However, no datasets currently exist for the design of machine learning models to recognize A/H. This paper introduces the Behavioural Ambivalence/Hesitancy (BAH) dataset collected for multimodal recognition of A/H in videos. It contains 1,427 videos with a total duration of 10.60 hours, captured from 300 participants across Canada, answering predefined questions to elicit A/H. It is intended to mirror real-world digital behaviour change interventions delivered online. BAH is annotated by three experts to provide timestamps that indicate where A/H occurs, and frame- and video-level annotations with A/H cues. Video transcripts, cropped and aligned faces, and participant metadata are also provided. Since A and H manifest similarly in practice, we provide a binary annotation indicating the presence or absence of A/H. Additionally, this paper includes benchmarking results using baseline models on BAH for frame- and video-level recognition, and different learning setups. The limited performance highlights the need for adapted multimodal and spatio-temporal models for A/H recognition. The data and code are publicly available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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".