Corporal Punishment in Public Schools: Is the United States Out of Step?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few topics evoke more emotion than how to discipline children in public schools. And not many people are neutral in their views toward corporal punishment. Surprisingly, the United States stands almost alone on its position regarding the legality of corporal punishment. Among thirty-five industrialized countries, only the United States and the Outback regions of Australia do not ban this disciplinary technique (Center for Effective Discipline 2004a). And other than its use in public education, corporal punishment is banned in most U.S. government institutions, such as prisons and military bases. Although many European countries have prohibited corporal punishment in schools since the 1800s, the practice was not banned in the United Kingdom until the late 1980s, and there was no national ban of this disciplinary technique in Canada until 2004.1 Despite the absence of a national prohibition on corporal punishment in the United States, an increasing number of states and local school districts have adopted laws or regulations prohibiting corporal punishment in public schools. Only one state, New Jersey, prohibited corporal punishment by law in 1970, but by 2004, twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia had barred this disciplinary strategy in public education. In an additional state, Rhode Island, all local school districts prohibit corporal punishment even though there is no state law to that effect.2 Also, in nine states that still authorize corporal punishment in public schools, more than half the students are enrolled in districts that have adopted policies prohibiting this disciplinary technique (Center for Effective Discipline 2004b). Most states still permitting corporal punishment are located in the southern region of the country.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".