Parental Investment and Resemblance: Replications, Refinements, and Revisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary theory predicts that men should be more concerned with issues of false paternity than women should be concerned with false maternity. In an earlier study ( Volk and Quinsey, 2002 ), we studied how infant cues of resemblance influenced adults' hypothetical adoption decisions. We found that self-perceived cues of resemblance were significantly more important in men's decisions than in women's. Since that study was published, conflicting results have been reported regarding a sex-difference in the importance of cues of resemblance for adoption preference. We therefore sought to replicate our findings in three new studies. In all three studies, we replicated the initial finding of a larger correlation between ratings of resemblance and ratings of adoption preference among men than among women. We also found a trend towards slightly higher global resemblance scores in younger children, suggesting that adults view infants as more anonymous and/or less uniquely distinctive than older children. However, there was wide variance in both the global resemblance and developmental changes in resemblance amongst the different child stimuli used.
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 | 0.077 | 0.318 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".