Sexual Orientation, Objective Height, and Self-Reported Height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies that have used mostly self-reported height have found that androphilic men and women are shorter than gynephilic men and women, respectively. This study examined whether an objective height difference exists or whether a psychosocial account (e.g., distortion of self-reports) may explain these putative height differences. A total of 863 participants, recruited at a Canadian university, the surrounding region, and through lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) events across Canada, self-reported their height and had their height measured. Androphilic men were shorter, on average, than gynephilic men. There was no objective height difference between gynephilic, ambiphilic, and androphilic women. Self-reported height, statistically controlling for objective height, was not related to sexual orientation. These findings are the first to show an objective height difference between androphilic and gynephilic men. Also, the findings suggest that previous studies using self-reported height found part of a true objective height difference between androphilic and gynephilic men. These findings have implications for existing biological theories of men's sexual orientation development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".