Body mass index, facial width‐to‐height ratio, and perceived formidability in female Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fighters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) and body mass index (BMI) have been associated with aggressive behavior in women but how they influence perception of their potential threat remain unclear. Here, we assessed the effects of fWHR and BMI on perceived formidability from faces of 42 female Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fighters. In study 1, BMI, but not fWHR, positively predicted participants' ratings of aggressiveness and fighting ability from facial photographs. In study 2, both high fWHR and high BMI composite faces were rated as more aggressive, tougher, and more likely to win a fight than low fWHR and low BMI composite faces, respectively. Further analyses revealed that the high BMI composite face was rated as more aggressive and tougher than the high fWHR composite face. Taken together, these results suggest that compared to fWHR, BMI may be a more salient cue to women's formidability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".