Gender Differences in Perception of Self-Orientation: Software or Hardware?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the contribution of attentional strategy to the perception of self-orientation with and without a body tilt in the median plane. Reinking et al (1974 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30 807-811) found that the frame dependence of females on the rod-and-frame test could be mediated by instructions prompting them to focus on internal cues (ie arising from inside of the body). Here, we measured the influence of attentional instructions on the perception of the morphological horizon. Eleven females and thirteen males estimated their morphological horizon in an upright and a 45 degrees body tilt in the median plane under three instruction conditions. All participants first performed without attentional instructions. Then, participants performed under both internal and external attentional instructions. For females, but not for males, perception of morphological horizon was more footward in the supine than in the upright orientation. Although instructions did not eliminate gender differences, internal instructions allowed females to reduce their perceptual bias in the supine orientation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it