Corporal punishment and reporting to child protection authorities: An empirical study of population attitudes in five European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, which draws upon representative survey data of the populations of Austria (n = 1000), Estonia (n = 1069), Ireland (n = 1000), Norway (n = 1002) and Spain (n = 1000), compares population attitudes towards corporal punishment (CP) and whether citizens would report corporal punishment to the child protection authorities. We found significant cross-country differences in attitudes towards CP, but only small differences between countries in attitudes towards reporting it. The most interesting and puzzling finding was the mismatch between attitudes towards CP and attitudes towards reporting it: almost one third of individuals who reject CP would not report it, and a quarter of those accepting CP would report it. We discuss whether the observed mismatches are due to perceptions that the CP we described does not meet a threshold to require state intervention, and whether knowledge about bans of CP and/or moral obligations to report CP has impact. Furthermore, we discuss the role of populations’ confidence in the state and populations’ trust in the ability and competency of the child protection authorities to improve a child’s life.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".