Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smacking is often considered a personal, moral issue. However, there are benefits to taking an objective, structured approach to smacking, such as a public health approach. Smacking and other related terms are poorly defined. Definitions of ‘acceptable’ smacking are grounded more in socio-cultural norms than in rational argument. Parents smack for a range of reasons, of which discipline and guidance is only one. The distinction between physical punishment and abuse is problematic. There now exists a large and consistent body of observational evidence linking smacking to a range of negative outcomes. It has been suggested that such results may be due to confounding in cross-sectional studies. However, more recent robust prospective designs yield similar results. It seems likely, though not certain, that smacking causes negative health outcomes. It is also very prevalent, both in New Zealand and in many other countries. No widely agreed definitions exist on what constitutes a public health problem. Smacking satisfies epidemiologically-based criteria for a public health problem, but other criteria are also relevant. Inequalities and human rights approaches are important aspects of public health problems, and smacking is both a health inequality and a breach of human rights. Public health approaches may be useful both in understanding the problem of smacking, and in intervening. The application of a public health intervention framework to smacking, such as the Ottawa Charter, reveals promising opportunities for public health action, though further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions. Both intervention and further research are clearly justified for this significant public health problem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".