Attracting Interest: Dynamic Displays of Proceptivity Increase the Attractiveness of Men and Women
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
Proceptive signals may influence judgments of opposite-sex attractiveness because these signals indicate high mate quality and/or non-threatening behavior but they may also signal high probable rate of return for mating effort. If so, individuals observing these signals may be sensitive to where the signals are directed to; signals directed toward other individuals may not predict what signals would be directed toward the observer. To explore these possibilities I made use of video stimuli composed of mock interviews with actors. Each actor did one proceptive and one unreceptive interview. Each interview was presented as being directed toward participants or toward an opposite sex interviewer. Proceptivity enhanced the attractiveness of opposite-sex actors and an interaction between proceptive state and signal direction was found, with this pattern varying substantially between actors. The possibility that this variation is mediated by the physical attractiveness and sex of the actors will be 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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