“These are His Rules, Our Rules”: Constructions of Fathers as Disciplinarians Within Low-Income Families of the Western Cape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental discipline is an important aspect of a child’s socialization and has been adapted over time as social views on disciplinary approaches have changed. Although both parents play a role in carrying out discipline, fathers are frequently viewed as the ultimate disciplinary figure, and their methods are often associated with harsh and aggressive practices. Thus, the recent prohibition of corporal punishment in South Africa has added heightened relevance to the question of how families are currently constructing paternal discipline within the home. The current study sought to explore, from a social constructionist perspective, how family units (comprised of a mother, father, and adolescent child) from three low-income Western Cape communities make meaning of the father’s role in discipline. An inductive thematic analysis revealed that traditionally gendered stereotypes prevail in the construction of fathers as the more effective disciplinarian in the household. However, family members’ emphasis on fathers’ non-violent, gentle disciplinary methods indicates a shift in social expectations, in line with a more emotionally attuned, caring expression of masculinity and fatherhood. The gender of the adolescent was found to influence both the manner in which paternal discipline was conducted and perceived. These findings foreground social tensions between traditionally gendered power relations and roles, and contemporary constructions of a softer, more authoritative paternal disciplinarian in these communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".