Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While prenatal sex hormones guide the development of sex-typical reproductive structures, they also act on the developing brain, resulting in sex differences in brain and behavior in animal models. Stemming from this literature is the prominent hypothesis that prenatal neuroendocrine factors underlie sex differences in human sexual orientation, to explain why most males have a preference for female sexual partners (gynephilia), whereas most females display a preference for male sexual partners (androphilia). Convergent evidence from experiments of nature and indirect markers of prenatal hormones strongly support a role for prenatal androgens in same-same sexual orientations in women, although this finding is specific to a subset of lesbians who are also gender nonconforming (“butch”). More gender-conforming lesbians (“femmes”) do not show evidence of increased prenatal androgens. The literature has been more mixed for male sexual orientation: some report evidence of low prenatal androgen exposure, while others report evidence of high androgen levels and many other studies find no support for a role of prenatal androgen exposure in the development of androphilia in males. Recent evidence suggests there may be subgroups of gay men who owe their sexual orientation to distinct biodevelopmental mechanisms, which could account for these mixed findings. Although this research is young, it is similar to findings from lesbian populations, because gay men who are more gender nonconforming, and report a preference for receptive anal sex, differ on markers of prenatal development from gay men who are more gender conforming and report a preference for insertive anal sex. This chapter concludes with future research avenues including assessing whether multiple biodevelopmental pathways underlie sexual orientation and whether neuroendocrine factors and other biological mechanisms (e.g., immunology, genetics) interact to promote a same-sex sexual orientation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".