Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan<i>fa'afafine</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The manner in which male androphilia is publicly expressed varies cross-culturally. As such, it is unclear whether distinct or common underlying causal processes characterize male androphilia in different cultures. Establishing the existence of cross-cultural universals in male androphilia is one means of ascertaining whether common biological bases underlie this phenomenon despite its culturally distinct forms. The evidence that the number of older biological brothers increases the odds of androphilia in later-born males has been well documented for Western samples (i.e. the fraternal birth order effect); but there is little evidence for this effect in non-Western samples. Here, we compare the birth order of androphilic males (i.e. fa'afafine) and gynephilic males from the politically autonomous Polynesian nation of Independent Samoa. Results indicate that relative to gynephilic males, fa'afafine tend to have more siblings and are generally later born when birth order is quantified using Slater, fraternal and sororal indices. More specifically, fa'afafine tend to have a greater number of older brothers, older sisters and younger brothers. We discuss the observed effects in relation to the differing reproductive patterns exhibited by the mothers of fa'afafine and gynephilic males, and to existing social and biological theories for sexual orientation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".