MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401345653 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1458388

Editorial: Insights in: evolutionary psychology 2022

2024· editorial· en· W4401345653 on OpenAlexaff
Karlijn Massar, Mark Collard, Peter K. Jonason

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEvolutionary psychologyAttractivenessPersonalityFacial attractivenessPersonality psychologyBig Five personality traitsCognitive scienceSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

testosterone and cortisol (i.e. the Dual Hormone Hypothesis) has been established in regulating mate traits associated with dominance. It is less well-known how these hormones influence traits that are ostensibly opposed to status seeking (i.e. depressive symptoms). These authors test the relationships between the DHH and depressive symptoms in first-time fathers, thereby furthering the knowledge on the neuroendocrinology of postpartum depression among fathers.Gagliardi explores the adaptive function(s) of the human attachment system, hypothesizing that it is a motivational and data system infants and children use to to gather information from caregivers, and to optimize future interactions. The author further proposes that whereas somaticity modulates affiliation tendencies, when there is a mismatch between the current and learning environments, it can potentially increase vulnerability to social anxiety and eating disorders. This contribution has relevant implications for evolutionary psychiatry and clinical psychology by integrating multiple levels of explanation for psychopathology, thereby informing the design of new psychological treatments.Utilizing genome-wide SNP data (713,014 SNPs) of participants from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, Fieder and Huber test the assumption that genetic heterozygosity, particularly within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), is positively associated with facial attractiveness. Specifically, heterozygosity at certain loci may signal a preferable genetic makeup (e.g. pathogen resistance), potentially influencing mate choice. Although the authors do find an association between increased homozygosity and attractiveness, these effects were small and not robust against multiple testing. Thus, although heterozygosity, and thus vulnerability to pathogens, may be detected by attractiveness to a small extent, the authors emphasize the need for bigger and cross-cultural samples.Lastly, the contribution by Gutiérrez et al. deepens life history theory, by analyzing the associations between reproductive traits, distinct mating strategies, and personality traits. The authors identify two pathways to a fast life history strategy: One through fewer but longer lasting relationships (fast-restricted), and another through more but shorter relationships (fastunrestricted). Thus, contrary to common assumptions, these results indicate that reproductive success is linked more to relationship duration than to the number of mates. The authors emphasize that human reproductive behavior is multifaceted, and that a nuanced understanding of reproductive strategies in humans should include attention to ecological conditions, culture, and personality traits.Together, the contributions in this research topic highlight several common themes. First, they all aim to deepen our understanding of complex phenomena within human psychology and behavior, whether it's the influence of hormones on depressive symptoms, the adaptive function of the attachment system, genetic influences on facial attractiveness, or the diversity of reproductive strategies and their association with personality traits. Second, they challenge traditional assumptions and theories, by revealing nuanced relationships and interactions between various factors. Finally, they emphasize the importance of considering multiple levels of explanation, including genetic, hormonal, psychological, and environmental factors, to fully comprehend human psychology and its evolutionary roots.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0190.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.020

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207