Voice pitch alters mate-choice-relevant perception in hunter–gatherers
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
In humans, voice pitch is thought to be a cue of underlying quality and an important criterion for mate choice, but data from non-Western cultures have not been provided. Here we test attributions to and preferences for voices with raised and lowered pitch in hunter-gatherers. Using a forced-choice playback experiment, we found that both men and women viewed lower pitched voices in the opposite sex as being better at acquiring resources (e.g. hunting and gathering). While men preferred higher pitched women's voices as marriage partners, women showed no overall preference for voice pitch in men. However, women who were currently breastfeeding had stronger preferences for higher pitched male voices whereas women not currently breastfeeding preferred lower pitched voices. As testosterone is considered a costly signal associated with dominance, heritable immunity to infection and low paternal investment, women's preferences potentially reflect a trade-off between securing good genes and paternal investment. Men's preferences for higher pitched female voices are probably due to an evolved preference for markers of fecundity, reflected in voice pitch.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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