Generation, Distillation and Evaluation of Motivational Interviewing-Style Reflections with a Foundational Language Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Foundational Language Models are capable of performing many tasks at a high level but are difficult to deploy in many applications because of their size and proprietary ownership. Many will be motivated to distill specific capabilities of foundational models into smaller models that can be owned and controlled. In the development of a therapeutic chatbot, we wish to distill a capability known as reflective listening, in which a therapist produces reflections of client speech. These reflections either restate what a client has said, or connect what was said to a relevant observation, idea or guess that encourages and guides the client to continue contemplation. In this paper, we present a method for distilling the generation of reflections from a Foundational Language Model (GPT-4) into smaller models. We first show that GPT-4, using zero-shot prompting, can generate reflections at near 100% success rate, superior to all previous methods. Using reflections generated by GPT-4, we fine-tune different sizes of the GPT-2 family. The GPT-2-small model achieves 83% success on a hold-out test set and the GPT-2 XL achieves 90% success. We also show that GPT-4 can help in the labor-intensive task of evaluating the quality of the distilled models, using it as a zero-shot classifier. Using triple-human review as a guide, the classifier achieves a Cohen-Kappa of 0.66, a substantial inter-rater reliability figure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".