Men display faster in male-biased mating contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across diverse species with sexual reproduction, typically the more male-biased the adult sex ratio (ASR), the greater the investments by the more populous males in the rarer females who hold greater bargaining power in a mating context. Relatively few studies have examined this effect in humans however, and almost none involve observations of actual male investment in a potential mating context. Here, we present one of the first studies to observe investments of men in a potential mating context under differing ASRs. Across 163 mixed-sex groups from three taverns on 7 days of observation, we measured both a group's ASR and each group's leading man's latency to position himself at the tavern's bar to order and pay for beverages. The higher the proportion of men in a group (ASR) and the fewer the absolute number of women in a group, the faster the leading man in the group travelled to reach the bar to order and pay for beverages. Results are consistent with the hypothesis that similar to males in many species, men tactically regulate their investments to adapt to the fluctuation in the ASR in order to maximize their probabilities of attracting a mate.
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".