Does Geographic Proximity Influence The Expression of Avuncular Tendencies in Canadian Androphilic Males?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Androphilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult males, whereas gynephilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult females. The Kin Selection Hypothesis posits that male androphilia may persevere over evolutionary time if the fitness costs of not reproducing directly are offset by increasing one’s inclusive fitness. Theoretically, this could be accomplished by allocating altruism toward close kin, thereby increasing the ability of those kin to reproduce. Evidence for this hypothesis has been garnered from research conducted in Samoa; however, no support has been garnered from research conducted in other, more industrialized cultures (i.e., Canada,usa,uk, Japan). It has been suggested that geographic disconnect from kin might mitigate the potential for androphilic males to exhibit elevated kin-directed altruism in more industrialized cultures. We examined whether Canadian androphilic males expressed elevated willingness to engage in altruistic behavior towards nieces and nephews, compared to gynephilic males and androphilic females, when the activities in question could be executed from a distance. Contrary to our prediction, when comparing groups for willingness to engage in altruistic behavior towards nieces and nephews that could be performed from a distance, we did not find that Canadian androphilic males exhibited significantly higher avuncular (uncle-like) tendencies. Other possible reasons for cross-cultural differences in avuncular tendencies by androphilic males 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".