Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several researchers have reported their attempts to document and analyze graffiti that appears in relatively private locations, such as public bathrooms. However, most reports have been sociological or descriptive in nature, and none have seemingly examined Canadian bathrooms. Given that graffiti have existed throughout human history and is readily apparent across cultures, we propose that an evolutionary perspective may be advantageous for understanding the content of graffiti. To explore this possibility, we examined the themes that emerge in the graffiti of men’s versus women’s bathrooms in order to investigate evolved sex differences, as evidenced in content. We propose that the sex differences in graffiti reflect those that may be expected due to intrasexual competition and mate preferences. The graffiti in men’s bathrooms included far more “tagging” (i.e., signatures or personal logos), potentially indicating territoriality or self-proclamation of status, while the graffiti in women’s bathrooms focused on love and relationships. We conclude with directions for future research based on an evolutionary perspective that may further contribute towards an understanding of graffiti.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".