The effect of sexual arousal on risky decision-making / Gillian Kennedy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Risky Decision-MakingSexual arousal is likely an important situational factor in date rape.Research shows that sexual arousal increases self-reported willingness to engage in sexually aggressive behaviour.Chapter One reviews the situational, perpetrator, and victim characteristics of date rape.Chapter Two describes an experiment that examined the effect of sexual arousal on measures of decision-making, including Risky Choice Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, Future Discounting, and on a measure of Viewing Time.Participants were 20 heterosexual men and 22 heterosexual women 18 to 25 years old.Results revealed that sexually aroused women preferred higher variance options compared to women who were not, and the opposite was observed for men.No other significant effects were observed.Chapter Three describes Experiment 2 which included another neutral condition and a measure of sexual decision-making.Results revealed no effect of condition on behavioural or sexual decision-making, nor on viewing times.Chapter Four provides a general discussion and directions for future research.iv
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".