Individual's Reproductive Strategies Moderates the Association Between Facial Width-to-Height and Risk-Taking Propensity
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
Previous research has yielded mixed findings on the relationship between facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR), an androgen-dependent feature, and risk-taking propensity. We argue that mixed findings might result from overlooked variables. Given that risk-taking propensity might be ultimately linked to a search for mating opportunities, we analyze if reproductive strategies moderate the relationship between fWHR and risk-taking propensity. Our results, obtained from a sample of 434 male participants, show a positive association between fWHR and recreational and social risk-taking only for men who are more motivated to focus on mating effort over offspring survival. This finding aligns with research arguing that risk-taking may be a mating strategy since being social and recreational risk-prone might illustrate physical and psychological qualities and improve one's ability to attract mates. Our results support the notion that risk-taking might be a domain-specific construct. Overall, our research is in line with recent findings suggesting that the impact of testosterone exposure on risk-taking propensity is best understood when considering the role of contextual variables. Consequently, we add to previous research that studies related to risk-taking propensity should account for reproductive strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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