MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595963060

The 2D:4D ratio, hand dominance, and gender

2016· article· en· W2595963060 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Protopapas, Pamela J. Bryden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigit ratioHand preferenceCalipersPsychologyDominance (genetics)PreferenceDemographyDevelopmental psychologyTestosterone (patch)MedicineLateralityInternal medicineStatisticsMathematicsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ratio of the difference between the 2nd and 4th digits of the hand (2D:4D ratio) has been demonstrated to be an indirect indicator of prenatal testosterone levels. Prenatal testosterone has been found to play a role in brain development in utero, and thus may influence lateral asymmetries, such as handedness. The aim of the current study was to examine the 2D:4D ratio, hand preference, and hand performance measurements across different age groups. 25 individuals between 5-15 years old (x?age = 8.6, females = 14), 35 individuals between 20-30 years old (x?age = 24, females = 21), and 27 individuals 50 years or older (x?age = 59.67, females = 15) participated in the study and completed the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (WHQ) as an indicator of hand preference and the Tapley-Bryden Dot Marking (TBDM) task to evaluate hand performance. Right and left 2D:4D ratios were measured for all participants using Vernier calipers, measured to the nearest 0.01mm. No main effects were found for the 2D:4D ratios across the age groups. There was a main effect of handedness regardless of age, F(1,90) = 40.87, p

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207