What did the Canadian Public Learn From the 2004 Supreme Court Decision on Physical Punishment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the legal justification for physical punishment of children, but limited its protection to minor force applied by non-frustrated parents, with the hand, to children between the ages of 2 and 12. This double message – that physical punishment is justifiable but only under limited conditions – is potentially confusing to the Canadian public. We attempted to answer the question of whether this decision was understood as restricting the use of physical punishment or whether it was understood as giving a "green light" to this practice. We analyzed the first 420 responses to the decision that were posted to the website of a national newspaper in the days immediately following the release of the Court's decision. The postings were coded according to writers' awareness of and agreement with various aspects of the decision, as well as their conceptualizations of physical punishment. The findings demonstrate that the majority of writers understood the ruling as giving parents permission to use corporal punishment. Only 11% referred to the limitations placed on its use. The findings are discussed in terms of the policy implications of the Supreme Court's decision and the public's limited understanding of it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".