No Evidence for Treating Friends’ Children Like Kin in Canadian Androphilic Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that same-sex sexual orientation is associated with lower reproductive success, how have genes associated with male androphilia (i.e., male sexual attraction/arousal to adult men) persisted over evolutionary time? The Kin Selection Hypothesis proposes that by directing valuable resources toward kin, androphilic men may enhance their indirect fitness and thereby offset the fitness costs of not reproducing directly. Support for this hypothesis has been garnered from studies conducted in Samoa, but not from studies of "gay" men in industrialized cultures (i.e., Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States). This cross-cultural difference may be due to relatively greater geographic and familial disconnect experienced by androphilic "gay" men in industrialized cultures. This article reasons that in more industrialized settings, friends' children may serve as non-adaptive proxies for nieces and nephews. Hence, it was predicted that Canadian androphilic men would exhibit elevated altruistic tendencies toward their friends' children compared with gynephilic men and androphilic women. This prediction was not supported. However, in line with previous research, the results indicated that androphilic women are more likely to behave altruistically toward friends' children compared to gynephilic men. Other possible explanations for the existing cross-cultural discrepancy in altruistic tendencies toward nieces and nephews 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".