MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997264789 · doi:10.1080/19359705.2011.530570

Separation Anxiety in Feminine Boys: Pathological or Prosocial?

2010· article· en· W1997264789 on OpenAlexaff
Doug P. VanderLaan, Laura M. Gothreau, Nancy H. Bartlett, Paul L. Vasey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent UniversityUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAnxietyPerspective (graphical)FemininityDevelopmental psychologyProsocial behaviorSeparation (statistics)PsychopathologyPathologicalClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychoanalysisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has found that boys who exhibit Gender Identity Disorder in Children (GIDC) also commonly exhibit elevated traits of childhood separation anxiety. Here, we review recent cross-cultural, nonclinical research that suggests elevated childhood separation anxiety is simply a component of the more general pattern of femininity exhibited by pre-androphilic males (i.e., biological males who are sexually attracted to adult males in adulthood). Whereas clinical perspectives have tended to characterize the co-occurrence of femininity and elevated childhood separation anxiety as psychopathological, we propose an alternate perspective that views this co-occurrence as having a prosocial basis. Specifically, we argue that elevated childhood separation anxiety is a developmental precursor of cognitive biases that evolved to facilitate increased kin-directed altruism in androphilic males. We also detail findings concerning personality and behavioral characteristics of male androphiles that are consistent with this evolutionarily minded perspective. Possible clinical implications that arise from this evolutionarily minded perspective are also 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.383 · 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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Mental HealthSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207