MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622432791 · doi:10.1177/0165025416681538

Perspectives on parent discipline and child outcomes

2017· article· en· W2622432791 on OpenAlex

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

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNormativeAssertionPerspective (graphical)AutonomySocial psychologyMeaning (existential)Child disciplineSign (mathematics)Developmental psychologyPower (physics)EpistemologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective discipline involves the use of negative consequences, including reasoning as well as modest levels of power assertion, to discourage unacceptable behavior. A brief history of changing views of discipline is presented and recent positions outlined. Successful discipline requires the imposition of clear and consistent rules, autonomy support, perspective-taking, and acceptance rather than rejection of the child. There are different kinds of negative consequences that are evaluated differently by children as well as having different effects on their behavior. In addition, there are individual differences in how children react to a specific form of discipline, and parents need to be aware of what those differences are. Cultural research underlines the fact that the meaning children assign to specific parenting actions is crucial in determining discipline success. When discipline is seen as normative, fair, and a sign of caring its form, within limits, is less important.

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)0.000
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 score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.340 · 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