Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Computational Lingusitics And Clinical Psychology 2016
DOI: 10.18653/v1/w16-0313
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Data61-CSIRO systems at the CLPsych 2016 Shared Task

Abstract: This paper describes the Data61-CSIRO text classification systems submitted as part of the CLPsych 2016 shared task. The aim of the shared task is to develop automated systems that can help mental health professionals with the process of triaging posts with ideations of depression and/or self-harm. We structured our participation in the CLPsych 2016 shared task in order to focus on different facets of modelling online forum discussions: (i) vector space representations; (ii) different text granularities; and (… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As illustrated in Table (a), our models outperform the baseline and all top performing state of the art systems by large margins. We observe that the non‐ green macro average F1 score for the individual and ensemble models improves over the best system (Kim et al, ) by +12% and +17%, respectively. Similarly, we observe that the F1 scores for the flagged category is 3% and 5% higher than the best system with the individual and ensemble models, respectively.…”
Section: Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As illustrated in Table (a), our models outperform the baseline and all top performing state of the art systems by large margins. We observe that the non‐ green macro average F1 score for the individual and ensemble models improves over the best system (Kim et al, ) by +12% and +17%, respectively. Similarly, we observe that the F1 scores for the flagged category is 3% and 5% higher than the best system with the individual and ensemble models, respectively.…”
Section: Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 67%
“…Most of the systems, generally used Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers (Cortes & Vapnik, ) or an ensemble of some other standard classifiers for identifying the content severity. We briefly describe the top three approaches: Kim, Wang, Wan, and Paris () used a Stochastic Gradient Decent classification framework. They utilized the body of the text as the main source for feature extraction and represented the post by weighted TF‐IDF unigrams and distributed representation of documents (Le & Mikolov, ).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The three best performing teams obtained a macroaveraged fmeasure of 0.42, but used very different approaches to do so. Kim et al (2016) combined relatively few features (unigrams and post embeddings) with an ensemble of SGD classifiers. Brew (2016) used traditional n-gram features with a well-tuned SVM classifier, and achieved the best separation of urgent posts (crisis and red versus amber and green) with 0.69 f-measure.…”
Section: Online Forums and Support Groupsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Triaging mental health posts [164] Depression and PTSD detection [166] Adverse drug reaction mention detection [87] Adverse drug reaction extraction [87] Task type Shared task best: 0.42 [165] Shared task best: 0.84 [167] Shared task best: 0.42 [168] Upper limits: 0.54 (Twitter) 0.68 (DailyStrength) Shared task best: 0.61 [169] Upper limits: 0.72 (Twitter) 0.82 (DailyStrength)…”
Section: Taskmentioning
confidence: 99%