MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208572497

Facial Attractiveness Preferences: a possible mechanism for understanding the differential reproduction of women with and without androphilic sons

2014· dissertation· en· W2208572497 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jessica Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen ULeth Scholarship (OPUS) (University of Lethbridge) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsAttractivenessMechanism (biology)ReproductionMatingPsychologyDifferential (mechanical device)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyBiologyZoologyEcologyEngineeringEpistemologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sexually Antagonistic Gene Hypothesis (SAGH) holds that a gene can be reproductively detrimental to one sex, but be selected for so long as it is reproductively beneficial to the other sex. Consistent with this, research indicates that the female relatives of androphilic males exhibit elevated reproduction compared to those without androphilic male relatives. This thesis addresses whether the mating psychology of women with androphilic sons differs from that of women with no androphilic sons. If differences in preferences for certain male facial features exist, this might explain why the female kin of male androphiles produce more offspring compared to the female kin of male gynephiles. I found that women with and without androphilic sons did not differ in their preferences for a variety of male facial features, indicating that differences in mating psychology not accounting for the differential reproduction of these two groups of women.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen ULeth Scholarship (OPUS) (University of Lethbridge)Same topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207