MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920051857 · doi:10.1080/15299716.2015.1022924

Gender-Specificity of Genital Response and Self-Reported Sexual Arousal in Women Endorsing Facets of Bisexuality

2015· article· en· W1920051857 on OpenAlexaff
Katrina N. Bouchard, Amanda D. Timmers, Meredith L. Chivers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bisexuality · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual arousalPsychologyArousalSexual attractionSex organSexual orientationDevelopmental psychologySexual identityHeterosexualityFantasyRomanceClinical psychologySexual behaviorHuman sexualitySocial psychologyHomosexualityGender studiesBiologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gender-specific sexual arousal has been examined in women with sexual attractions toward predominantly women or men, but not in women reporting sexual attractions to both genders. In this study, women who endorsed one or more facets of bisexuality—sexual orientation, sexual identity, romantic attraction, sexual fantasy, sexual behavior—listened to narratives describing sexual and nonsexual interactions with female and male partners while their genital response and self-reported sexual arousal were assessed. Contrary to expectations, across the bisexuality facets, female gender cues produced a greater degree of genital response and self-reported sexual arousal than male gender cues, regardless of the number of facets of bisexuality that were endorsed. This pattern of results replicates those obtained by Timmers, Bouchard, and Chivers (2015) using audiovisual stimuli. Implications for our understanding of women's sexual attractions and response are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BisexualitySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207