Canadian men’s visual attention to cisgender women, cisgender men, and transgender women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian heterosexual and gay men's self-reported sexual attraction and visual attention to images of nude cisgender women, transgender women who have breasts, transgender women who do not have breasts, cisgender men, and bonobos (a non-sexual comparison) as well as their response to the Modified Attraction to Feminine Male Scale (MAFM), Interest in Visual Sexual Stimuli Scale (IVSS), Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI), and the Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHNS). AR = sexual attraction rating (from 1 = "not at all sexually attracted to 7 = "extremely sexually attracted"); ET = Eye-tracking; TFF = time to first fixation; TFD = total fixation duration; TFC = total fixation count; W = cisgender women; ATW = transgender women who have surgically augmented their breasts; NATW = transgender women who have not surgically augmented their breasts; M = cisgender men; A = ape (bonobos); raw = raw values; std = standardized values
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.016 |
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".