If I shouldn't spank, what should I do? Behavioural techniques for disciplining children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide family physicians with a guide for evaluating discipline problems, giving suggestions for parental guidance, and diagnosing problems when discipline guidance fails. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A MEDLINE and PsycINFO search from 1990 to the present produced articles reviewing research on aspects of discipline. Case-control studies, expert opinion, and position statements published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society were chosen as a basis for this article. In a special supplement in 1996, a pediatric journal reviewed the controversy of spanking as an effective disciplinary method, with comments by noted researchers and clinicians. Other authors reviewed research evaluating discipline techniques. MAIN MESSAGE: Discipline problems require evaluation of children, parents, and parent-child relationships, including assessment of child development and evaluation of parenting skills and parental stressors. Parents can learn techniques more effective than spanking. Physicians can review discipline strategies and guide parents through difficult situations. Monitoring progress is important, and immediate reassessment of the situation if techniques are failing or referral to a specialist will increase the chances of a successful intervention. CONCLUSION: Discipline problems are complex and require careful assessment. Guiding parents during these types of problems requires close follow up and reevaluation when methods do not have the expected effect.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".