The spandrels of Santa Barbara? A new perspective on the peri-ovulation paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous recent studies document peri-ovulatory increases in women’s physical attractiveness and in their preferences for certain male traits, which appear to be linked to cyclical fluctuation in levels of ovarian hormones. Changes in physical traits are subtle, leading to the widespread conclusion that cues of ovulation are adaptively concealed. It has been argued that concealment enables women to pursue a mixed-mating strategy characterized by pair-bonding with opportunistic extrapair copulation with high-quality mates when conception is possible. Men’s preferences for peri-ovulatory cues and women’s cyclical preference shifts are thus also argued to reflect distinct psychological adaptations. Here, we re-interpret the evidence for each of these putative adaptations and argue that cyclic changes need not result from incomplete concealment of ovulatory status. We also emphasize that ovarian hormone levels underpin between-individual differences in both women’s attractiveness and their mate preferences, which influence the sexes’ mate-choice decisions. We contrast the salience and efficiency of these within- and between-individual effects, and suggest that, although both effects have the potential to influence mating behavior, the between-individual effects are stronger and more robust. This introduces the possibility that both men’s increased attraction towards peri-ovulatory women and women’s cyclical shifts in preference for certain male traits may not constitute adaptations per se, but are, instead, inevitable by-products, or “perceptual spandrels,” of putative adaptations related to between-individual differences in reproductive potential. Our framework parsimoniously explains several observable phenomena and potentially could transform the way evolutionary researchers interpret changes in behavior associated with the menstrual cycle.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".