MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174356569 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2014-014

Child and Parent Characteristics Associated With Canadian Parents’ Reports of Spanking

2014· article· en· W2174356569 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeff L. Perron, Catherine M. Lee, Kathryn J. LaRoche, Christine A. Ateah, Marie‐Ève Clément, Kathy Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpankingCorporal punishmentChild disciplinePsychologyLogistic regressionQuarter (Canadian coin)Developmental psychologyChild rearingDemographyPoison controlInjury preventionMedicineSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined self-reported use of spanking as a discipline strategy in a Canadian sample of mothers and fathers (N = 2,340) of children aged 2 to 12 years using data from the International Parenting Survey–Canada. Logistic regression was conducted to assess the association between reported use of spanking and child characteristics (age, gender, disability status, and behaviour problems), adult demographic characteristics (age at birth of child, marital status, education, employment, and income inadequacy), as well as parent attitudes toward spanking. Approximately one quarter of parents reported spanking their child. Child age, parent education, employment, and income inadequacy had significant associations with reported spanking. When controlling for child and parent demographic characteristics, parent reports of child behaviour and parent attitudes toward spanking also had strong relationships with reported spanking. Results are discussed in relation to previous findings and in terms of implications for parenting interventions.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207