Exploring the sex and gender correlates of cognitive sex differences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The correlates of cognitive sex differences are yet to be fully understood. Many biological and psychosocial factors modulate these cognitive abilities leading to mixed results in the scientific literature. The current study aims to explore the different parameters potentially influencing cognitive abilities acting in synergy. Sex and gender correlates of cognitive functioning were assessed in a sample of individuals ages 18 to 45 years (N = 87) from diverse sexual orientations. Sex hormones were assessed via saliva samples at four timepoints throughout the testing. Gender roles, sexual orientation and socio-demographics were measured via self-report questionnaires. Participants completed mental rotation and verbal fluency tasks. Men performed better than women at mental rotation, while no significant difference was found for verbal fluency. Significant positive associations were observed between estradiol and word fluency for the naturally cycling women compared to the women using oral contraception. While controlling for sex hormones, a significant interaction effect of sex by gender roles was identified for mental rotation among masculine women. These exploratory results suggest an effect principally driven by sex and sex hormones on cognitive performance that will need to be furthered with larger studies.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it