MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003192254 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051921

Virtually Naked: Virtual Environment Reveals Sex-Dependent Nature of Skin Disclosure

2012· article· en· W2003192254 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna M. Lomanowska, Matthieu J. Guitton

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAvatarPopulationHuman skinPsychologySocial psychologyBiologyComputer scienceDemographyHuman–computer interactionSociologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human tendency to reveal or cover naked skin reflects a competition between the individual propensity for social interactions related to sexual appeal and interpersonal touch versus climatic, environmental, physical, and cultural constraints. However, due to the ubiquitous nature of these constraints, isolating on a large scale the spontaneous human tendency to reveal naked skin has remained impossible. Using the online 3-dimensional virtual world of Second Life, we examined spontaneous human skin-covering behavior unhindered by real-world climatic, environmental, and physical variables. Analysis of hundreds of avatars revealed that virtual females disclose substantially more naked skin than virtual males. This phenomenon was not related to avatar hypersexualization as evaluated by measurement of sexually dimorphic body proportions. Furthermore, analysis of skin-covering behavior of a population of culturally homogeneous avatars indicated that the propensity of female avatars to reveal naked skin persisted despite explicit cultural norms promoting less revealing attire. These findings have implications for further understanding how sex-specific aspects of skin disclosure influence human social interactions in both virtual and real settings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207