Kissing Right? Absence of Rightward Directional Turning Bias During First Kiss Encounters Among Strangers
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
When leaning toward a partner for a kiss, the direction that individuals turn their head when planting the kiss is found to vary based on the kiss’s context; romantic kissing between adult couples is consistently directed rightward, though recently, a non-romantic kiss between parent–child couples was observed to be leftward. The current study further examines the lateral head-turning direction between non-romantic couples using a novel context: a first kiss between strangers. Observing strangers kissing was feasible due to a unique social media phenomenon; since 2014, 23 “First Kiss” online videos have emerged which depict kisses facilitated by the video’s director between consenting strangers. The turning direction of 230 kissing couples were coded from the 23 First Kiss videos, and the proportion of right to left turns were almost equal; 51% of couples displayed a right-turn kiss, and 49% conveyed a left-turn kiss. Further, the proportion of right and left turns observed from our sample of strangers kissing were compared to Güntürkün’s (in Nature 421:711, https://doi.org/10.1038/421711a , 2003) original study that examined authentic kissing between adult couples. A significantly different turning bias was exhibited. Because the kissing criterion was parallel between these studies, our study demonstrates that the context influenced the direction of bias, namely, that of a non-romantic kiss. We discuss the potential role of context and emotional lateralization on kissing laterality, and propose future directions to test these predictions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it