L’opinion des étudiants en médecine de Québec sur les punitions corporelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the opinion of medical students attending Laval University (Québec, Québec) regarding the controversial subject of corporal punishment in children. METHOD: For five consecutive years, from the 2006/2007 through to the 2010/2011 school year, an opinion poll was completed by the fourth year medical students at Laval University during a seminar concerning the maltreatment of children. RESULTS: Of the 712 students questioned, 91% were younger than 30 years of age and 74% were female. With respect to the use of corporal punishment on children, 22% of the respondents declared they were in favour of it. More men than women were in favour of this disciplinary practice, with 31% of the men in favour compared with 18% of the woman (adjusted RC 2.2 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.4]; P=0.0003). Approximately 36% of the students who had experienced corporal punishment were in favour of it, compared with only 4% of those who had not experienced this form of discipline (adjusted RC 16.5 [95%CI 8.6 to 31.4]; P<0.0001). Among those who stated that they had been victims of physical abuse, 25% declared themselves in favour of this practice, which was a similar proportion to those who had not been victims of physical abuse (21%) (P=0.52). CONCLUSION: While several medical organizations have declared opposition to the use of corporal punishment, greater than one in five future Quebec doctors are in favour of this disciplinary method and could influence the behaviour of parents in this regard.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".