Sport Participation Influences Perceptions of Mate Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport provides a context in which mate choice can be facilitated by the display of athletic prowess. Previous work has shown that, for females, team sport athletes are more desirable as mates than individual sport athletes and non-participants. In the present study, the perceptions of males and females were examined regarding potential mates based on sport participation. It was predicted that team sport athletes would be more positively perceived than individual sport athletes and non-participants by both males and females. A questionnaire, a photograph, and manipulated descriptions were used to gauge perceptual differences with respect to team sport athletes, individual sport athletes, and extra-curricular club participants for 125 females and 119 males from a Canadian university. Both team and individual sport athletes were perceived as being less lazy, more competitive, and healthier than non-participants by both males and females. Interestingly, females perceived male athletes as more promiscuous than non-athletes, which upholds predictions based on previous research indicating (a) athletes have more sexual partners than non-athletes, and (b) females find athletes more desirable as partners than non-participants. Surprisingly, only males perceived female team sport athletes as more dependable than non-participants, and both team and individual sport athletes as more ambitious. This raises questions regarding the initial hypothesis that male team athletes would be perceived positively by females because of qualities such as the ability to cooperate, likeability, and the acceptance of responsibilities necessary for group functioning. Future studies should examine similar questions with a larger sample size that encompasses multiple contexts, taking into account the role of the social profile of sport in relation to mate choice and perception.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".