Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined preferences for the characteristics of one’s future offspring in a sample of 391 Canadian undergraduate students who provided self-reports, with a focus on several issues: (1) the relative preference for “success” traits (ambition, athleticism, attractiveness, charisma, intelligence) versus “humanity” traits (kindness, generosity, fairness, honesty), (2) the relative preferences among the various “success” traits themselves (separately for prospective sons and prospective daughters), and (3) the associations of respondent personality characteristics with the offspring trait preferences. Our findings showed that “humanity” traits were favored over “success” traits by the large majority of respondents but that the remaining respondents tended to be low in Honesty-Humility and to some extent in Agreeableness (versus Anger) and Emotionality. Respondents showed a weak preference for intelligence over the other success traits; preferences for those traits were similar for prospective sons and prospective daughters, but athleticism was slightly favored among sons and attractiveness was slightly favored among daughters.Keywords: offspring trait selection; intelligence; attractiveness; athleticism; personality
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".