Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n what follows I present a two-part argument designed to ration- ally persuade readers that, first, all forms of corporal punishment are immoral, and second, that the Canadian law which grants parents and teachers a legal privilege to corporally punish the children in their care ought to be removed from our Criminal Code.I argue for the immorality of all forms of corporal punishment based on its harms to children and the adults they become-harms and risks for harms that have been repeatedly demonstrated in empirical research-and on the absence of evidence that it is effective at improving children's behaviour or character.The most, it seems, that can be said for corporal punishment, based on this evidence, is that it is usually successful at temporarily interrupting specific aversive conduct.But since this can also be said of other disciplinary methods that do not involve the infliction of pain, the interruption of aversive conduct cannot morally justify the use of pain as a disciplinary measure.Contrary to what a long tradition in law of granting parents and teachers the legal privilege of corporal punishment assumes, there is no moral justification for it and indeed, definite reason to morally condemn it.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".