Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism spectrum conditions (ASCs) are a category of neurodevelopmental disorders with symptoms of communication and social impairment, and the exhibition of restrictive and repetitive behaviours. Their occurrence is greater in males than females and this sex difference has played an important part in hypothesizing their etiology. The Extreme Male Brain (EMB) theory is a cognitive model proposed by Simon Baron-Cohen to explain the aforementioned sex differences and potential cause of ASCs. It is based upon his Empathizing Systemizing theory, which classifies individuals into one of five cognitive profiles (Type S, Type E, Type B, Extreme Type S and Extreme Type E). These cognitive profiles determine an individual’s ability to systemize and empathize. Systemizing is the ability to understand and derive the rules of a system, and requires deductive and analytical skills. Empathizing relates to understanding human emotion and behaviour, thus requires social and communication skills. Males tend to systemize better than empathize while females have an opposite profile. Based upon the EMB theory, autistic individuals would possess an Extreme Type S profile as their impairments in social communication can be explained by a deficit in empathizing, while their preoccupation with patterns and detail-oriented behaviour can be related to their high systemizing. Together, these cognitive models have resulted in the Foetal Testosterone (fT) Theory, which implicates high prenatal testosterone as a risk factor for the associated hypermasculinized cognitive profile of individuals with ASCs. This review paper assesses the validity of the EMB and fT theories by reviewing the literature relating fT with autistic traits in the general population. The seven studies confirmed a correlation between higher fT levels and an increase in autistic traits, but limitations need to be considered when generalizing this information to an ASC sample.
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 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 | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".