Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 6, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Automatic assessment of communication quality in dyadic counseling conversations is bottlenecked by data: expert-rated corpora are small and expensive to grow. We study cross-domain transfer of expert overall-impression prediction across three German corpora of simulated counseling (two general-practice medical, one school-related parent-teacher; $n=195$ expert-rated sessions, one corpus after scale equating). Training on the other domains beats training in-domain: leave-one-domain-out transfer reaches nested Spearman $ρ= 0.54$ against $\le 0.48$ within the target domain, a paired session-level gap of $+0.15$ that holds at $+0.12$ when the training-set sizes are matched, so it is not simply data volume. The decisive features are session-level construct scores from small open-weight LLMs reading the two-speaker transcript, with the constructs largely derived from the experts' rating instruments: the instrument-derived battery lifts a single judge from $0.32$ to $0.41$ over generic dialogue qualities, judges from three model families ensemble to $0.51$ language-only, and a nonverbal-dyadic block adds $+0.03$ more, not separable from noise at this sample size. We also price the recording setup: one corpus lost its per-speaker audio, 16% of its diarised segments carry the wrong speaker, and repair is worth $+0.07$ there. At practically attainable corpus sizes, the expert's overall impression is carried by what is said, and by other communication programs' data more than by one's own.