MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968322075 · doi:10.1080/01460860390197853

DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES WITH CHILDREN: PARENTAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION, ATTITUDES, AND EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

2003· article· en· W1968322075 on OpenAlexaff
Christine A. Ateah

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineVariety (cybernetics)PsychologyPunishment (psychology)Developmental psychologyParenting skillsValue (mathematics)Child rearingSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although parenting is one of the most important roles undertaken during an individual's lifetime, the amount of information and education that parents receive for this role is variable and often minimal. Parenting behaviors are influenced by a variety of factors and conditions such as knowledge levels, and parenting abilities vary with parents' own childhood experiences, value systems, education levels, and other life experiences. One ongoing parenting issue is the management of and appropriate response to child misbehavior. A review of the topics of discipline and physical punishment are discussed in this article in relation to definitions, practice, and outcomes. A study of parents' attitudes regarding physical punishment and their sources and needs for related parenting education are presented. Findings from this study (N = 170) indicate that parents receive parenting information from a variety of sources, most frequently through discussions with other parents, books on parenting, and their own experiences. The topics identified most frequently by respondents are age-appropriate disciplinary responses and expected child development and behaviors. These areas of information should be made available on a wide basis to parents of young children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric NursingSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207