Emotion Granularity from Text: An Aggregate-Level Indicator of Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are united in how emotions are central to shaping our experiences; yet, individuals differ greatly in how we each identify, categorize, and express emotions. In psychology, variation in the ability of individuals to differentiate between emotion concepts is called emotion granularity (determined through self-reports of one's emotions). High emotion granularity has been linked with better mental and physical health; whereas low emotion granularity has been linked with maladaptive emotion regulation strategies and poor health outcomes. In this work, we propose computational measures of emotion granularity derived from temporally-ordered speaker utterances in social media (in lieu of self reports that suffer from various biases). We then investigate the effectiveness of such text-derived measures of emotion granularity in functioning as markers of various mental health conditions (MHCs). We establish baseline measures of emotion granularity derived from textual utterances, and show that, at an aggregate level, emotion granularities are significantly lower for people self-reporting as having an MHC than for the control population. This paves the way towards a better understanding of the MHCs, and specifically the role emotions play in our 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 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".