Gender-Specificity of Women's and Men's Self-Reported Attention to Sexual Stimuli
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
Men's sexual arousal is largely dependent on the actor's gender in a sexual stimulus (gender-specific), whereas for women, particularly androphilic women, arousal is less dependent on gender (gender-nonspecific). According to information-processing models of sexual response, sexual arousal requires that attention be directed toward sexual cues. We evaluated whether men's and women's self-reported attention to sexual stimuli of men or women were consistent with genital responses and self-reported arousal. We presented gynephilic men (n = 21) and women (n = 22) and androphilic men (n = 16) and women (n = 33) with audiovisual stimuli depicting men or women engaged in sexual activities. Genital responses were continuously recorded and, following each stimulus, participants reported the amount of attention paid to the video and feelings of sexual arousal. Self-reported attention was gender-specific for men and gender-nonspecific for women, and generally mirrored genital responses and self-reported arousal. Gender-specificity of genital responses significantly predicted gender-specificity of self-reported arousal; however, for men only, this effect was significantly mediated by gender-specificity of self-reported attention. Gender differences in gender-specificity of sexual arousal may be partially accounted for by differences in gender-specificity of self-reported attention, although attention may play a greater role in men's sexual arousal than women's.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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