MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078744209 · doi:10.1177/026975800501200202

Policing the Punishment: Charging Practices Under Canada's Corporal Punishment Laws

2005· article· en· W2078744209 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tammy Landau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Victimology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporal punishmentSeriousnessDiscretionCriminologyLegislationCLARITYLawPunishment (psychology)Political scienceCriminal justicePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian data show that children and youth experience high degrees of violence in their lives. A significant degree of this violence occurs within the family, and can be attributed to excesive ‘correction’ or physical discipline. Indeed, section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code permits the use of ‘reasonable’ force for the purposes of correction. This paper presents data on police response to allegations of excessive or illegal corporal punishment under current Canadian legislation. As the gatekeepers to the courts, the police act as the social, legal and moral guardians of the use of corporal punishment in Canada. The findings suggest that there is significant variation in police response both to the range and seriousness of incidents of corporal punishment. Much of this can be attributed to the normal exercise of police discretion. However, the breadth and lack of clarity in the law itself is an additional, problematic source of uncertainty and undermines attempts to reduce violence in the lives of 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of VictimologySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207