2. The Effects of Sociosexual Orientation, Gender and Relationship Context Cues in Audio Narratives on Heterosexual Men's Genital and Subjective Sexual Response.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research suggests that heterosexual men show a category-specific pattern of sexual arousal, showing greater arousal to stimuli depicting women than those depicting men.Gender is not, however, the only factor affecting sexual arousal in men. Research has shown that men regard relationship context as an important factor in sexual arousal.Additionally, men show greater sexual arousal to novel than to familiar sexual stimuli. Sociosexuality, the preference for committed or uncommitted sexual relationships,affects behaviour and partner preferences. The current study investigates the relationship between sociosexuality, gender cues, relationship context cues, and sexual arousal in menby assessing 25 heterosexual men’s genital and subjective sexual arousal to 18 audio narratives describing sexual or neutral encounters with female and male strangers,friends, or long-term relationship partners. I expect that heterosexual men will show greater subjective and genital arousal in response to stimuli depicting a sexual encounter with a woman than to stimuli depicting a sexual encounter with a man, replicating previous research. I hypothesize that there will be an interaction between gender cues and relationship context, such that men will show greater sexual arousal to stimuli depicting novel female sexual partners (strangers and friends) than to stimuli depicting familiar female sexual partners (long-term partners). I predict that higher sociosexuality scores, indicating a greater preference for uncommitted sexual relationships, will correlate with greater sexual arousal to uncommitted relationship contexts (strangers or friends), whereas lower sociosexuality scores, will correspond with greater sexual arousal to the committed relationship context (long-term partner).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".