Does the strength of women’s attraction to male vocal masculinity track changes in steroid hormones?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies that either used luteinizing hormone tests to confirm the timing of ovulation or measured steroid hormones from saliva have found little evidence that women’s preferences for facial or body masculinity track within-subject changes in women’s fertility or hormonal status. Fewer studies using these methods have examined women’s preferences for vocal masculinity, however, and those that did report mixed results. Consequently, we used a longitudinal design and measured steroid hormones from saliva to test for evidence of hormonal regulation of women’s (N=351) preferences for two aspects of male vocal masculinity (low pitch and low formants). Analyses suggested that preferences for masculine pitch, but not masculine formants, may track within-woman changes in estradiol. Although these results present some evidence for the hypothesis that within-subject hormones regulate women’s attraction to masculine men, we do not discount the possibility that the effect of estradiol on pitch preferences in the current study is a false positive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".