Digit ratio (2D:4D) and hand preference for writing in the BBC Internet Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ratio of the length of the second to the fourth digit (2D:4D) may be negatively correlated with prenatal testosterone. Hand preference has been linked with prenatal testosterone and 2D:4D. Here we show that 2D:4D is associated with hand preference for writing in a large internet sample (n>170,000) in which participants self-reported their finger lengths. We replicated a significant association between right 2D:4D and writing hand preference (low right 2D:4D associated with left hand preference) as well as a significant correlation between writing hand preference and the difference between left and right 2D:4D or Dr-l (low Dr-l associated with left hand preference). A new significant correlation between left 2D:4D and writing hand preference was also shown (high left 2D:4D associated with left hand preference). There was a clear interaction between writing hand preference and 2D:4D: The left 2D:4D was significantly larger than the right 2D:4D in male and female left-handed writers, and the right hand 2D:4D was significantly larger than the left hand 2D:4D in male and female right-handed writers.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".