Canadian undergraduate men’s visual attention to cisgender women, cisgender men, and feminine trans individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some heterosexual men express sexual interest in feminine trans individuals with penises. It is possible that this interest arises from a tendency for heterosexual men to be sexually responsive to gender in addition to sex. We compared the self-reported sexual attraction and visual attention patterns of Canadian undergraduate heterosexual men (N = 51) and gay men (N = 20) to nude images of feminine trans individuals with penises, cisgender men, and cisgender women. Heterosexual men were most attracted to cisgender women and fixated on them the longest. However, they were more attracted to feminine trans individuals with penises than to cisgender men. They also biased their attention to feminine trans individuals with penises over cisgender men. This pattern was unique to heterosexual men. Gay men were most attracted to cisgender men and allocated the most visual attention to them. They responded to feminine trans individuals and cisgender women in a relatively similar manner. As such, heterosexual men appear to be responsive to sex and gender, which may account for sexual interest in feminine trans individuals among some heterosexual men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".