MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125146204 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13528

Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference

2021· article· en· W3125146204 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Davis, Ellen Robertson, Sheina Lew‐Levy, Karri Neldner, Rohan Kapitány, Mark Nielsen, Melissa Hines

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSmuts Memorial Fund, University of CambridgeSchool of the Biological Sciences, University of CambridgeClare College, University of CambridgeSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGates Cambridge TrustUniversity of QueenslandQueensland University of TechnologyDirectorate for Biological SciencesCambridge TrustUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsPreferencePsychologyAmazon rainforestScale (ratio)Contrast (vision)GeographyDemographySociologyEcologyBiologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preferences for pink and blue were tested in children aged 4-11 years in three small-scale societies: Shipibo villages in the Peruvian Amazon, kastom villages in the highlands of Tanna Island, Vanuatu, and BaYaka foragers in the northern Republic of Congo; and compared to children from an Australian global city (total N = 232). No sex differences were found in preference for pink in any of the three societies not influenced by global culture (ds - 0.31-0.23), in contrast to a female preference for pink in the global city (d = 1.24). Results suggest that the pairing of female and pink is a cultural phenomenon and is not driven by an essential preference for pink in girls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207