The Emergence of Spanking Among a Representative Sample of Children Under 2 Years of Age in North Carolina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanking is common in the United States but less common in many European countries in which it has been outlawed. Being spanked has been associated with child abuse victimization, poor self-esteem, impaired parent-child relationships, and child and adult mental health, substance abuse, and behavioral consequences. Being spanked as a child has also been shown to increase the likelihood of abusing one's own children or spouse as an adult. Spanking of very young children less than two is almost never recommended even among experts that consider spanking as reasonable in some circumstances. Using a cross-sectional anonymous telephone survey, we describe spanking rates among a representative sample of North Carolina mothers of children less than 2 years old and the association of spanking with demographic characteristics. A substantial proportion of mothers admit to spanking their very young children. The rate of spanking in the last year among all maternal respondents was 30%. Over 5% of the mothers of 3-month olds reported spanking. Over 70% of the mothers of 23-month olds reported spanking. Increased spanking was associated with higher age of the child and lower maternal age. With every month of age, a child had 27% increased odds of being spanked. Early spanking has been shown to be associated with poor cognitive development in early childhood. Further, early trauma has been shown to have significant effects on the early developing brain. It is therefore critical that health and human services professionals address the risk of corporal punishment as a method of discipline early in the life of the child. The spanking of very young children may be an appropriate locus for policy and legislative debates regarding corporal punishment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".