Parents’ views of the relevance of a violence prevention program in high, medium, and low human development contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every day, almost one billion children around the world experience violent punishment. Eliminating all violence against children is a key target of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This is a monumental challenge due to the diversity of cultural, economic and social contexts in which children live. Violence-prevention programs developed in wealthy countries cannot be assumed to be transferable to low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the relevance of Positive Discipline in Everyday Parenting (PDEP) to 525 parents living in countries with high ( n = 201), medium ( n = 166), or low ( n = 158) Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Indices. The outcome measures were parents’ satisfaction with the program and their perceptions of its impact on their parenting. Across IHDI categories, almost all parents were “mostly” or “very satisfied” with the overall program (98.4%), the PDEP parent book (97.9%), and the program activities (97.8%). Parent satisfaction scores were higher in the Low IHDI category than in the High IHDI category. Across IHDI categories, large majorities of parents perceived PDEP as having positive impacts on their parenting. While parents in the Medium IHDI category had the strongest perceptions of PDEP’s positive impact, more than 90% of parents in the Low IHDI category believed that the program will help them to understand their children’s development and feelings, communicate better with their children, control their anger, and build stronger relationships with their children. PDEP is a promising tool for preventing punitive violence against children across human development contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".