Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed risk factors of sibling sexual contact, drawing from Seto's (2019) Motivation-Facilitation model and from the evolutionary theory of incest aversion.Among 1,164 adults aged 18 to 30 years old, motivation factors (e.g., atypical sexual interests) were more strongly correlated with propensity (e.g., sexual interest in sibling sexual contact), than facilitation factors (e.g., antisociality) and kinship cues (i.e., cues suggesting relatedness).Kinship cues were positively, rather than negatively, correlated with incest propensity and modelling kinship cues did not improve model fit; the present results do not support the evolutionary theory of incest aversion.Typical characteristics of sibling sexual contact (i.e., pre-pubertal; non-penetrative) may not align with the type of contact most susceptible to evolutionary pressures.Taken together, motivation factors are important risk factors for sibling sexual contact and more research is needed to ascertain the contribution of kinship cues to sibling sexual contact.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".