Biodevelopmental Correlates of Sexual Orientation in Men: Evidence from a Polish Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological mechanisms proposed to play a role in the development of sexual orientation in men include hormonal, genetic, and immunological factors. The posited roles of these factors are not mutually exclusive; instead, they may be at play to different degrees in different individuals. Direct measurement of these influences is challenging; thus, researchers rely on putative markers. We collected data on five well-established markers in a sample of gay and heterosexual men. We then (1) compared the levels of those markers in gay and straight men, (2) identified latent profiles based on those markers, and (3) compared the proportions of gay and straight men within the profiles. Gay men reported less gender conformity in childhood, a higher proportion of older brothers, were more right-handed, had more non-heterosexual relatives, and had more feminized digit ratios. Of the six identified profiles, the most numerous, containing a significantly higher proportion of straight men, had masculine digit ratios, masculine behavior in childhood, and was the most right-handed. Proportions of gay and straight men did not differ in the profile with the most feminine digit ratio, the profile associated with the highest proportion of older brothers, and the profile associated with left-handedness. Two remaining profiles, associated with familiality, and the most feminine childhood gender behaviors, consisted predominantly of gay men. The study suggests that further investigations of differences within sexual orientation categories are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".