1. Effect of Gender Cues in Audio Narratives on Same-Gender Attracted Women’s Psychophysiological Sexual Arousal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of my honours thesis project is to gain further understanding of subjective and genital arousal patterns of women who have varying degrees of same-genderattractions. While other-gender attracted women show a category-nonspecific or generalized pattern of sexual response to their preferred and nonpreferred gender, samegenderattracted women show a category-specific pattern of responding, with significantly greater sexual response to their preferred gender, when exposed to lowintensity audiovisual stimuli (Chivers, Seto, & Blanchard, 2007). Past research has examined same-gender attracted women’s sexual responses to audiovisual stimuli (Chivers et al., 2007) and other-gender attracted women’s sexual responses to audio narratives (Chivers & Timmers, in press); however, no research to date has focused on same-gender attracted women’s sexual responses to audio narratives, which is a less intense stimulus modality (e.g., Heiman, 1980). Study procedure involved presentation of sexual and nonsexual audio narratives, which described interactions with male and female partners, to women with varying degrees of same-gender attractions. I will examine the category-specificity of same-gender attracted women’s genital and subjective sexual response. I expect that same-gender attracted women will have a category-specific pattern of sexual response, with significantly greater genital and subjective sexual arousal to sexual stories featuring a female partner. Also, I expect that genital and subjective arousal to sexual stories featuring a female partner will increase with degree of samegenderattraction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".