Change in corporal punishment over time in a representative sample of Canadian parents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporal punishment is a controversial form of discipline. Although its prevalence appears high, legal reforms and public education efforts to limit corporal punishment may be resulting in a decrease in its prevalence and frequency of use. This study drew on Canadian nationally representative data to understand the social change that might be happening and to characterize parents who continue to use corporal punishment. The study relied on cross-sectional data from Cycles 1 (1994) to 8 (2008) of the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth to examine parental reports of corporal punishment for children ages 2–11 years. Analyses were conducted separately for 2- to 5-, 6- to 9-, and 10- to 11-year-olds, and sociodemographics associated with corporal punishment were examined. A significant decrease in the prevalence and frequency of corporal punishment use was observed across time for all age groups. Child sex, parent age, employment status, family structure, household size, immigration status, ethnicity, and religion significantly distinguished parents who use corporal punishment from those who do not, but there was variability across the age groups. Effect sizes question the relevance of the observed decrease in corporal punishment from an applied perspective. Approximately 25% of Canadian parents still use corporal punishment with children ages 2–11 years; therefore, it remains an issue that merits continued attention. Certain child, parent, and family characteristics seem to characterize parents who use corporal punishment, but other more dynamic variables may be important to consider, such as parental stress and their attitudes toward corporal punishment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".