MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115978161 · doi:10.1177/0971333613516229

The Meanings Jamaicans Associate with Corporal Punishment

2014· article· en· W2115978161 on OpenAlex
Taniesha Burke, Olga Sutherland

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Developing Societies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCaribbean history, culture, and politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporal punishmentPunitive damagesPunishment (psychology)PsychologyNewspaperDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyCriminologySociologyPolitical scienceLawMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the meanings Jamaicans associate with corporal punishment and its perceived effects on children, caregivers’/parents’ relationship with children and in a broader sense, Jamaican culture. A total of 183 readers’ comments on 13 articles that focused on corporal punishment—published in a prominent Jamaican online newspaper—were qualitatively analysed. The results indicated that not all Jamaicans engage in or embrace the use of corporal punishment. There is a clear divide between Jamaican individuals who practise corporal punishment and those who believe it is socially unacceptable. Those in favour of it reported that it was religiously justified and effective as a method of discipline. Opponents of this view highlighted the negative physical and mental effects of corporal punishment on children and provided alternative discipline methods that were less punitive and more responsive to the needs of children and the parent–child relationship. Implications of the results are discussed.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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