Is That “Mr.” or “Ms.” Lemon? An Investigation of Grammatical and Semantic Gender on the Perception of Household Odorants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linguistic relativism is the idea that the structure of language influences thought. The present study investigates linguistic relativism by asking whether people who speak a gendered language think of objects in a way that is consistent with the grammatical gender (more masculine or feminine) more than people who speak a language without that linguistic feature. Odorants are unique stimuli for examining this question, because they carry a semantic gender without a biological one, yet gender is thought to be a central dimension of their perception. Canadian participants in the present study (native French or native English speakers) described a set of labeled odorants that varied systematically in grammatical and semantic gender to produce an implicit gender measure and also explicitly rated them for gender. Analysis of the implicit femininity contained in participants' descriptions showed a tendency for both native French and native English speakers to produce descriptions that were consistent with semantic gender; moreover, there were no effects of grammatical gender on implicit or explicit ratings. These results suggest that in a bilingual culture, French speakers may have been influenced by the anthropomorphism associated with odorants rather than grammatical gender.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".