Interrelationships Among Men's Threat Potential, Facial Dominance, and Vocal Dominance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benefits of minimizing the costs of engaging in violent conflict are thought to have shaped adaptations for the rapid assessment of others' capacity to inflict physical harm. Although studies have suggested that men's faces and voices both contain information about their threat potential, one recent study suggested that men's faces are a more valid cue of their threat potential than their voices are. Consequently, the current study investigated the interrelationships among a composite measure of men's actual threat potential (derived from the measures of their upper-body strength, height, and weight) and composite measures of these men's perceived facial and vocal threat potential (derived from dominance, strength, and weight ratings of their faces and voices, respectively). Although men's perceived facial and vocal threat potential were positively correlated, men's actual threat potential was related to their perceived facial, but not vocal, threat potential. These results present new evidence that men's faces may be a more valid cue of these aspects of threat potential than their voices are.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 it