Sex and gender correlates of sexually polymorphic cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : Sexually polymorphic cognition (SPC) results from the interaction between biological (birth-assigned sex (BAS), sex hormones) and sociocultural (gender identity, gender roles, sexual orientation) factors. The literature remains quite mixed regarding the magnitude of the effects of these variables. This project used a battery of classic cognitive tests designed to assess the influence of sex hormones on cognitive performance. At the same time, we aimed to assess the inter-related and respective effects that BAS, sex hormones, and gender-related factors have on SPC. Methods : We recruited 222 adults who completed eight cognitive tasks that assessed a variety of cognitive domains during a 150-minute session. Subgroups were recruited as follows: cisgender heterosexual men (n = 46), cisgender non-heterosexual men (n = 36), cisgender heterosexual women (n = 36), cisgender non-heterosexual women (n = 38), gender diverse (n = 66). Saliva samples were collected before, during, and after the test to assess testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, cortisol, and dehydroepiandrosterone. Psychosocial variables were derived from self-report questionnaires. Results : Cognitive performance reflects sex and gender differences that are partially consistent with the literature. Interestingly, biological factors seem to better explain differences in male-typed cognitive tasks (e.g., spatial), while psychosocial factors seem to better explain differences in female-typed cognitive tasks (e.g., verbal). Conclusion : Our results provide a solid foundation for better understanding SPC by going beyond BAS as a binary. We highlight the importance of treating sex as a biological factor and gender as a sociocultural factor together since they collectively influence SPC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".