OnCoCo 1.0: A Public Dataset for Fine-Grained Message Classification in Online Counseling Conversations

Jens Albrecht, Robert Lehmann, Aleksandra Poltermann, Eric Rudolph, Philipp Steigerwald, Mara Stieler · Dec 10, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

This paper presents OnCoCo 1.0, a new public dataset for fine-grained message classification in online counseling. It is based on a new, integrative system of categories, designed to improve the automated analysis of psychosocial online counseling conversations. Existing category systems, predominantly based on Motivational Interviewing (MI), are limited by their narrow focus and dependence on datasets derived mainly from face-to-face counseling. This limits the detailed examination of textual counseling conversations. In response, we developed a comprehensive new coding scheme that differentiates between 38 types of counselor and 28 types of client utterances, and created a labeled dataset consisting of about 2.800 messages from counseling conversations. We fine-tuned several models on our dataset to demonstrate its applicability. The data and models are publicly available to researchers and practitioners. Thus, our work contributes a new type of fine-grained conversational resource to the language resources community, extending existing datasets for social and mental-health dialogue analysis.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.