MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEBATE IN CANADA

2003· article· en· W2086240373 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martha Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Court Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporal punishmentParliamentSupreme courtPunishment (psychology)LawPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)CriminologyPsychologyPoliticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The controversial issue of corporal punishment of children is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. Whether or not Canada's highest court rules that the “reasonable chastisement” defense to charges of assault on children by parents and teachers is unconstitutional, it is likely that Parliament will move forward with reforms. Social science evidence on the negative effects of corporal punishment has been accepted by the federal government, and it seems likely that Canada will soon join the list of countries that prohibit the practice.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Court ReviewSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207