Ending the Social Normalization of Violence against Children in Canada: A Framework, Rationale, and Appeal to Canadian Faith Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporal punishment remains the most common form of violence against children in Canada. Along with being legally permitted, it is made socially acceptable through cultural and social norms often disguised as discipline. Paraphrases of Judeo-Christian sacred texts such as "spare the rod; spoil the child" have been widely used to justify corporal punishment, and to create norms around the idea that it is a god-given responsibility of parents to inflict corporal punishment on their children "for their own good." Corporal punishment is then not only an acceptable part of raising children but can be a godly duty. Though Canada is a secular country, this social norm provides a moral hegemony under which violence becomes the status quo and has proven very difficult to change. In this commentary, we outline the ways that Christian religion has contributed to social norms around corporal punishment. We then argue that religious leaders have an opportunity-and moral responsibility-to contribute to change. We conclude with insights from social norms theory and offer evidence-based recommendations for ways forward that could help shift attitudes around corporal punishment in order to decrease its prevalence and harm. While each of these issues has been written about extensively in isolation, this commentary offers an analysis of these matters together under one umbrella. By making this relationship between Christianity and the social norms that propagate corporal punishment more visible, we draw attention to the role leaders in Christian churches could play in disrupting the social acceptance of violence against our youngest Canadian citizens. We provide a practical and evidence-based framework, rationale, and appeal to Canadian faith leaders to use their influence to add momentum to a critical health, rights-and religion-issue in Canada.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".