Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Advancing Mental Disorder Detection: A Comparative Evaluation of Transformer and LSTM Architectures on Social Media

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A fine-tuned RoBERTa separates mental-health and control Reddit posts at 99.54% F1.

desk verdict A careful model benchmark whose central claim is undermined by the annotation rule: labels come from subreddit membership, so the near-ceiling F1 mostly measures topic and register differences, not mental disorder. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19511 v1 pith:VNA3OOVB submitted 2025-07-17 cs.CL cs.LG

Khalid Hasan , Jamil Saquer , Mukulika Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords mentalhealthdetectiontransformermodelsRoBERTaLSTMReddittextclassificationsocialmediaminingwordembeddings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a fine-tuned transformer model can reliably separate Reddit posts about mental health problems from posts on everyday topics, and that transformers do so more accurately than LSTM networks. Using a newly built dataset of 144,000 balanced posts, the authors report that RoBERTa reaches a 99.54% F1 score on the held-out test set and a 95.96% F1 score on an external set of subreddits the model never saw during training. They also report that LSTM models fed with BERT embeddings reach above 94% F1 on the external set while training in roughly a quarter of the time, making them a credible low-cost alternative. If the result is right, automated first-pass screening of social-media mental-health content is well within reach of current language models, with the caveat that the labels come from community membership rather than clinical assessment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pretrained transformer encoder fine-tuned end-to-end for binary classification, best realized here by RoBERTa, with labels aggregated by majority vote over five stratified folds. The competing mechanism is an LSTM sequence model whose word-embedding layer is swapped among BERT, GloVe, and Word2Vec embeddings, with optional bidirectional processing and attention. A third piece of machinery is dataset construction: regular expressions target users who self-identify with a condition, overlapping users are removed so the two classes do not share an author, and each post's label is inherited from its subreddit's category.

What would settle it

Have mental-health clinicians re-label a stratified random sample of posts from both categories without seeing the subreddit of origin, then score RoBERTa's predictions against those clinical labels; if F1 falls well below the reported 95–99%, the original numbers were identifying community topic rather than mental disorder.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a RoBERTa classifier fine-tuned on 120,000 posts, with predictions aggregated by majority vote over five cross-validation folds, labels hold-out posts from mental-health subreddits versus control subreddits correctly 99.54% of the time, and keeps 95.96% F1 when applied to an external set built from communities held out entirely during training. The authors attribute this performance to the self-attention mechanism and deeply contextual embeddings of transformer encoders. As supporting evidence, they show that LSTM networks using static Word2Vec or GloVe embeddings train to chance accuracy unless an attention layer is added, while LSTM networks using BERT embeddings reach 94–95% F1 on the external set. They frame the task as binary classification of expressed mental distress, not as clinical diagnosis, and validate the dataset with topic modeling plus manual agreement metrics on a 1,000-post sample.

Load-bearing premise

The labels are inferred from which subreddit a post appeared in, with only 1,000 of the 144,000 posts checked by human annotators, so the whole result rests on the assumption that posting in a mental-health subreddit indicates the presence of a mental disorder and posting in the selected control subreddits indicates its absence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A mental-health screening layer on social media can be built from a fine-tuned RoBERTa with F1 above 95% even for communities absent from training.
  • LSTM hybrids with BERT embeddings are a viable deployment choice when compute is limited, since they lose only a few F1 points while training much faster.
  • Static embeddings alone are inadequate for this task without an attention mechanism, and even then they trail transformers by roughly 15 F1 points.
  • Because all five transformer variants finish within about one point of each other, the practical ranking within the transformer family is tight.
  • The gap between hold-out and external performance indicates a generalization cost when moving to new communities, so broader training data should improve robustness.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because labels are inherited from subreddit of origin, the near-perfect scores may partly reflect community-level style differences such as pronoun density, post length, and URL frequency rather than disorder-specific signals; a matched-topic control would separate those.
  • The external test set shares the same platform and roughly the same era as training data, so transfer to other platforms, languages, or later time periods is untested and could be substantially weaker.
  • A clinically framed evaluation would need outcome labels from diagnosis or validated screening instruments; until then the practical claim is about automated triage of self-expressed distress, not detection of mental illness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a binary Reddit dataset by assigning posts from mental-health subreddits (r/ADHD, r/depression, r/anxiety, etc.) to a positive class and posts from topical control subreddits (r/politics, r/sports, r/travel, etc.) to a negative class. It then evaluates five transformer encoders (BERT, RoBERTa, DistilBERT, ALBERT, ELECTRA) and several LSTM variants with BERT, GloVe, and Word2Vec embeddings, using 5-fold cross-validation, a hold-out test set, and a smaller external test set. The headline result is that RoBERTa reaches 99.54% F1 on the hold-out set and about 96% F1 on the external set, with BERT-embedded LSTMs also exceeding 94% F1. The paper argues that these results demonstrate the superiority of transformer models for mental disorder detection and that LSTM-plus-BERT is a resource-efficient alternative.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would offer a large-scale benchmark and a strong positive result for transformer-based mental health text classification. The experimental pipeline is clearly described, the use of 5-fold cross-validation and an external test set is good practice, and the reported training-time comparisons are useful for practitioners. However, the identification of 'mental disorder' with a post's subreddit of origin is a community/topic label rather than a clinical label, and the validation steps do not break that circularity. The near-ceiling scores are therefore expected from a style- or genre-discrimination task, not evidence of mental disorder detection. As it stands, the paper is best understood as a benchmark of subreddit-membership classification, which is not the claim made in the title, abstract, and problem statement.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-A3] The label for every post is assigned from its subreddit membership: positive if the post comes from one of the selected mental-health subreddits and negative if it comes from one of the selected control subreddits. Because Table III shows that the two groups differ strongly in post length, URL rate, and pronoun/verb/adjective counts, and because the topic-model keywords in §IV-B2 are dominated by explicit clinical terms, a model can separate the classes by learning subreddit-specific genre cues without modeling a mental disorder. The 99.54% F1 score therefore demonstrates that RoBERTa can distinguish the two sets of communities, not that it detects a mental disorder in the text; the same logic applies to the external test set, whose labels are generated by the same subreddit-membership rule.
  2. [§IV-B3] The judgmental analysis does not validate the labels as clinical truth. It samples only 1,000 of the 144,000 posts, and the annotation guidelines in the same section equate the positive category with explicit emotional distress and the negative category with the absence of such distress. The reported Cohen's κ, Scott's π, and Krippendorff's α measure agreement between the human labels and the original subreddit-derived labels; high agreement under these instructions is consistent with a consistent but coarse rule and does not establish that the labels correspond to clinically meaningful disorder status.
  3. [§IV-A2] The self-identification regex filtering and the exclusion of users who posted in both mental-health and control subreddits are described only at a high level, and the regexes, code, and dataset are withheld. Without these materials, the reader cannot rule out that explicit diagnosis phrases such as 'I have depression' or 'my anxiety' are a shortcut that transformer models memorize, especially because the same filtering rule generates both training and test labels. The external test set is labeled by the same rule, so the 96.05% external F1 is also a subreddit-classification result rather than an independent confirmation of generalization to mental disorder detection.
  4. [§III] The problem statement in Section III defines the task as mapping each post to a label indicating 'the absence' or 'the presence' of mental illness, and the Abstract and Section V-A report the near-ceiling F1 scores as evidence for mental disorder detection. Because the label-generation process is not independent of subreddit identity, these claims overstate what the experiments show. If the paper were reframed as a benchmark of subreddit-membership classification, the model-comparison results could stand; under the current framing, the central conclusion is not supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-B3] The text states that the agreement metrics 'validate the quality of the annotations' and show 'very minimal subjective bias'; these are interpretive claims that should be separated from the descriptive reporting of the agreement statistics, since the statistics only quantify agreement with a rule-derived label.
  2. [Table V] The rows for GloVe/Word2Vec LSTM without attention report F1 = 0 with accuracy = 50.0 and leave precision and recall blank; the text says these models 'fail to train effectively,' but the reader should be told whether this is a degenerate all-negative classifier and should see the full confusion matrix or an explicit explanation of the discrepancy.
  3. [§V-A] The narrative says RoBERTa achieves '99.54% accuracy and F1 score' while Table V lists both as 99.54; the authors should state clearly which metric is the headline and whether the two are coincidentally equal.
  4. [§IV-A1] The data availability statement says the dataset is available 'upon request,' but for reproducibility and to address the label-confounding concern, the authors should release the annotation code and the exact self-identification regular expressions even if the raw Reddit text cannot be redistributed.
  5. [General] There are several grammatical and stylistic issues throughout (for example, 'they are still moderated,' 'very minimal subjective bias'), and a careful copyedit would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Empirical benchmark is internally consistent, but the mental-disorder label is defined by subreddit membership and the manual validation re-uses the same content rule, so the near-ceiling F1 scores measure subreddit/topic discrimination rather than independently confirming disorder detection.

  1. other [Section IV-A3 (Annotation) and Section IV-B3 (Judgmental Analysis); results in Table V]
    "For the annotation of the dataset, posts were classified based on their subreddit of origin. Posts from mental health-related subreddits ... were categorized as relating to mental disorders. ... A post is annotated as belonging to the mental disorder category if: The post explicitly discusses personal struggles related to mental health conditions such as ADHD, anxiety, bipolar disorder, PTSD, depression, schizophrenia, or BPD. ... We sampled 1,000 posts stratified by annotated groups from our dataset, which were manually labeled by two annotators."

    The manual labels use the same content heuristic as the original subreddit labels: a 'mental disorder' post is one that 'explicitly discusses personal struggles related to mental health conditions' or 'describes experiences of emotional distress,' and a control post has 'no mention of personal struggles related to mental health issues.' High agreement thus shows consistent re-application of the same rule, not external validation of the rule. Because both hold-out and external labels come from subreddit membership, the F1 scores are, by construction, subreddit/topic discrimination (see Table III: URL rates 3.0% vs 26.1%, pronouns 36.25 vs 11.57), not independent evidence of mental-disorder detection. No fitted parameter or self-citation is involved.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical supervised-learning benchmark, not a derivation chain, so most circularity patterns do not apply. No equation is self-referential, no fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and the self-citations (e.g., [20], [23], [28], [36]) are not load-bearing for the central architecture comparison. The key weakness is construct validity: Section IV-A3 defines 'mental disorder' by subreddit of origin and 'control' by topical subreddits, and Section IV-B3 validates these labels with manual annotations using the same conceptual rule (explicit mental-health content vs no such mention). The agreement statistics therefore certify internal consistency of the heuristic rather than external clinical grounding, and the external test set is still labeled by the same subreddit rule. This makes the headline mental-disorder claim partially circular at the measurement level, but the architecture comparison itself remains a legitimate empirical result; hence a score of 2 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends almost entirely on the annotation rule: that subreddit membership equals mental health status. This rule is used to label all 144,000 posts, and the manual agreement study only samples 1,000 posts. No independent clinical benchmark is used.

free parameters (4)
  • Learning rate = 1e-6
    Selected via Ray Tune grid search; affects all models equally and is not derived from theory.
  • Weight decay = 1e-2
    Selected via Ray Tune; common regularization choice.
  • LSTM hidden units = 128
    Chosen by hand for all LSTM variants; not derived from theory.
  • Dropout rates = 0.2 (input, recurrent, and after attention)
    Chosen by hand; affects LSTM training stability and generalization.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Posts from mental-health subreddits are valid indicators of mental disorder; posts from control subreddits are valid indicators of absence
    Section IV-A3. The entire dataset labeling rests on this proxy; no per-post clinical validation is performed for the full dataset.
  • domain assumption Self-identification regular expressions correctly identify users with mental health conditions
    Section IV-A2. The regexes are not specified in the paper; this assumption filters the dataset.
  • domain assumption The external test set, despite being from different subreddits, is representative of unseen mental health conditions
    Section IV-A2. External subreddits are also mental-health communities, so this is not an independent distribution shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advancing Mental Disorder Detection: A Comparative Evaluation of Transformer and LSTM Architectures on Social Media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNA3OOVB

@misc{pith2026250719511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advancing Mental Disorder Detection: A Comparative Evaluation of Transformer and LSTM Architectures on Social Media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNA3OOVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19511}
}
read the original abstract

The rising prevalence of mental health disorders necessitates the development of robust, automated tools for early detection and monitoring. Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP), particularly transformer-based architectures, have demonstrated significant potential in text analysis. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art transformer models (BERT, RoBERTa, DistilBERT, ALBERT, and ELECTRA) against Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) based approaches using different text embedding techniques for mental health disorder classification on Reddit. We construct a large annotated dataset, validating its reliability through statistical judgmental analysis and topic modeling. Experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of transformer models over traditional deep-learning approaches. RoBERTa achieved the highest classification performance, with a 99.54% F1 score on the hold-out test set and a 96.05% F1 score on the external test set. Notably, LSTM models augmented with BERT embeddings proved highly competitive, achieving F1 scores exceeding 94% on the external dataset while requiring significantly fewer computational resources. These findings highlight the effectiveness of transformer-based models for real-time, scalable mental health monitoring. We discuss the implications for clinical applications and digital mental health interventions, offering insights into the capabilities and limitations of state-of-the-art NLP methodologies in mental disorder detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An Overview of our Research Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results of Topic Modeling with eight Topics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. H. Organization, Mental disorders , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Mortality associated with mental disorders and comorbid general medical conditions,

    N. C. Momen, O. Plana-Ripoll, E. Agerbo, M. K. Christensen, K. M. Iburg, T. M. Laursen, P. B. Mortensen, C. B. Pedersen, A. Prior, N. Weye et al., “Mortality associated with mental disorders and comorbid general medical conditions,” JAMA psychiatry, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 444–453, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value,

    D. Arias, S. Saxena, and S. Verguet, “Quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value,” EClinicalMedicine, vol. 54, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Investigating the role of social media on mental health,

    H. E. Sadagheyani and F. Tatari, “Investigating the role of social media on mental health,” Mental health and social inclusion , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 41–51, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    A review of machine learning and deep learning approaches on mental health diagnosis,

    N. K. Iyortsuun, S.-H. Kim, M. Jhon, H.-J. Yang, and S. Pant, “A review of machine learning and deep learning approaches on mental health diagnosis,” in Healthcare, vol. 11, no. 3. MDPI, 2023, p. 285

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Advantage and drawback of support vector machine function- ality,

    S. Karamizadeh, S. M. Abdullah, M. Halimi, J. Shayan, and M. javad Rajabi, “Advantage and drawback of support vector machine function- ality,” in 2014 International Conference on Computer, Communications, and Control Technology (I4CT) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 63–65

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Classification of mental stress using cnn-lstm algorithms with electrocardiogram signals,

    M. Kang, S. Shin, J. Jung, and Y . T. Kim, “Classification of mental stress using cnn-lstm algorithms with electrocardiogram signals,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 9951905, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Review of text classification methods on deep learning

    H. Wu, Y . Liu, and J. Wang, “Review of text classification methods on deep learning.” Computers, Materials & Continua , vol. 63, no. 3, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Tunstall, L

    L. Tunstall, L. V on Werra, and T. Wolf, Natural language processing with transformers. ”O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Limitations of transformers on clinical text classification,

    S. Gao, M. Alawad, M. T. Young, J. Gounley, N. Schaefferkoetter, H. J. Yoon, X.-C. Wu, E. B. Durbin, J. Doherty, A. Stroup et al., “Limitations of transformers on clinical text classification,” IEEE Journal of Biomed- ical and Health Informatics , vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 3596–3607, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Machine learning for mental health in social media: bibliometric study,

    J. Kim, D. Lee, E. Park et al., “Machine learning for mental health in social media: bibliometric study,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 23, no. 3, p. e24870, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    From ADHD to SAD: Analyzing the language of mental health on Twitter through self-reported diagnoses,

    G. Coppersmith, M. Dredze, C. Harman, and K. Hollingshead, “From ADHD to SAD: Analyzing the language of mental health on Twitter through self-reported diagnoses,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to...

    2015

  5. [13]

    Text classification algorithms: A survey,

    K. Kowsari, K. Jafari Meimandi, M. Heidarysafa, S. Mendu, L. Barnes, and D. Brown, “Text classification algorithms: A survey,” Information, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 150, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Predicting depression via social media,

    M. De Choudhury, M. Gamon, S. Counts, and E. Horvitz, “Predicting depression via social media,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , vol. 7, no. 1, 2013, pp. 128–137

    2013

  7. [15]

    Recognizing depression from twitter activity,

    S. Tsugawa, Y . Kikuchi, F. Kishino, K. Nakajima, Y . Itoh, and H. Ohsaki, “Recognizing depression from twitter activity,” in Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems , 2015, pp. 3187–3196

    2015

  8. [16]

    Serein-m: Sensor relationship inference in multi-resident smart homes,

    F. A. Irfan, R. Iqbal, and A. Siddiqua, “Serein-m: Sensor relationship inference in multi-resident smart homes,” in 2024 IEEE 21st Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC) , 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  9. [17]

    Mental health analysis in social media posts: a survey,

    M. Garg, “Mental health analysis in social media posts: a survey,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1819–1842, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Mental illness classification on social media texts using deep learning and transfer learning,

    I. Ameer, M. Arif, G. Sidorov, H. G `omez-Adorno, and A. Gelbukh, “Mental illness classification on social media texts using deep learning and transfer learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01012 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologi...

    2019

  12. [20]

    A comparative analysis of transformer and lstm models for detecting suicidal ideation on reddit,

    K. Hasan and J. Saquer, “A comparative analysis of transformer and lstm models for detecting suicidal ideation on reddit,” in 2024 International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) , 2024, pp. 1343–1349

    2024

  13. [21]

    A fine-tuned bert-based transfer learning approach for text classification,

    R. Qasim, W. H. Bangyal, M. A. Alqarni, and A. Ali Almazroi, “A fine-tuned bert-based transfer learning approach for text classification,” Journal of healthcare engineering , vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 3498123, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Beyond lda: exploring supervised topic modeling for depression-related language in twitter,

    P. Resnik, W. Armstrong, L. Claudino, T. Nguyen, V .-A. Nguyen, and J. Boyd-Graber, “Beyond lda: exploring supervised topic modeling for depression-related language in twitter,” in Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on computational linguistics and clinical psychology: from lingu...

    2015

  15. [23]

    Mining developer questions about major nosql databases,

    S. Islam, K. Hasan, and R. Shahriyar, “Mining developer questions about major nosql databases,” Int. J. Comput. Appl , vol. 975, p. 8887, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Topic modeling in embedding spaces,

    A. B. Dieng, F. J. Ruiz, and D. M. Blei, “Topic modeling in embedding spaces,” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , vol. 8, pp. 439–453, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,

    J. Cohen, “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,” Educational and Psychological Measurement , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1960

    1960

  18. [26]

    Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations,

    K. Krippendorff, “Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations,” Human Communication Research, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 411–433, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x

    2004

  19. [27]

    Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks,

    C. G. Northcutt, A. Athalye, and J. Mueller, “Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14749, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A comparative study of software development practices in bangladesh, an emerging country,

    P. Chakraborty, K. Hasan, A. Iqbal, G. Uddin, and R. Shahriyar, “A comparative study of software development practices in bangladesh, an emerging country,” International Journal of Software Engineering, Technology and Applications, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 149–187, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Quantifying the language of schizophrenia in social media,

    M. Mitchell, K. Hollingshead, and G. Coppersmith, “Quantifying the language of schizophrenia in social media,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology: From Linguistic Signal to Clinical Reality . Denver, Colorado: Association fo...

    2015

  22. [30]

    Understanding mental health issues in different subdomains of social networking services: computa- tional analysis of text-based reddit posts,

    S. Kim, J. Cha, D. Kim, and E. Park, “Understanding mental health issues in different subdomains of social networking services: computa- tional analysis of text-based reddit posts,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 25, p. e49074, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    SMHD: a large-scale resource for exploring online language usage for multiple mental health conditions,

    A. Cohan, B. Desmet, A. Yates, L. Soldaini, S. MacAvaney, and N. Goharian, “SMHD: a large-scale resource for exploring online language usage for multiple mental health conditions,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , E. M. Bender,...

    2018

  24. [32]

    TextRank: Bringing order into text,

    R. Mihalcea and P. Tarau, “TextRank: Bringing order into text,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , D. Lin and D. Wu, Eds. Barcelona, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2004, pp. 404–411. [Online]. Ava...

    2004

  25. [33]

    Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank,

    M. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M. A. Marcinkiewicz, “Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank,” Computational lin- guistics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 313–330, 1993

    1993

  26. [34]

    La- tent dirichlet allocation (lda) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey,

    H. Jelodar, Y . Wang, C. Yuan, X. Feng, X. Jiang, Y . Li, and L. Zhao, “La- tent dirichlet allocation (lda) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey,” Multimedia tools and applications , vol. 78, pp. 15 169–15 211, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    What’s all the talk about? topic modeling in a mental health internet support group,

    B. Carron-Arthur, J. Reynolds, K. Bennett, A. Bennett, and K. M. Griffiths, “What’s all the talk about? topic modeling in a mental health internet support group,” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 16, no. 1, October 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1073-5

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    A survey-based qualitative study to characterize expectations of software developers from five stakeholders,

    K. Hasan, P. Chakraborty, R. Shahriyar, A. Iqbal, and G. Uddin, “A survey-based qualitative study to characterize expectations of software developers from five stakeholders,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Me...

    2021

  29. [37]

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,

    J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,” Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 159–174, 1977. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310

    1977

  30. [38]

    Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding,

    W. A. Scott, “Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding,” The Public Opinion Quarterly , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 321–325,

  31. [39]

    abs/1907.11692, 2019

    RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach , vol. abs/1907.11692, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:198953378

    1907 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,

    V . Sanh, L. Debut, J. Chaumond, and T. Wolf, “Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.01108

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations,

    Z. Lan, M. Chen, S. Goodman, K. Gimpel, P. Sharma, and R. Soricut, “Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909. 11942

    2020

  34. [42]

    Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators,

    K. Clark, M.-T. Luong, Q. V . Le, and C. D. Manning, “Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1xMH1BtvB

    2020

  35. [43]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    2019 arXiv

  36. [1955]

    Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746450

    [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746450

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.