MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152556683 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9807

Openness to Sexuality as a Predictor of Gender Non-Specificity of Visual Sexual Interest in Heterosexual Women

2018· article· en· W3152556683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole Persall

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityOpenness to experienceSexual arousalPsychologyHeterosexualityDevelopmental psychologyArousalSexual attractionSexual behaviorSexual desireSocial psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past research has indicated that there is a gender difference in regards to sexual arousal; such that heterosexual men typically show a pattern of gender-specificity, whereas women show a pattern of gender non-specificity. Although this is a robust finding, there is little research examining the predictors of this finding. The current study uses eye-tracking data (i.e., gaze time to male and female images) to examine the effect of openness to sexuality on visual sexual interest. Openness to sexuality is assessed using three factors: sexual attitudes, sexual desire, and sexual arousability. I predict that greater openness to sexuality (i.e., more positive sexual attitudes, greater sexual desire, and greater sexual arousability) is correlated with greater gender non-specificity of visual sexual interest.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207