Is religious affiliation associated with parent disciplinary behavior in Suriname and Guyana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although limited, there is some evidence that certain physical punishments may vary by household religion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether parent disciplinary behavior varies by religious affiliation in two countries which have large, diverse religious groups. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Data from Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys for Suriname (2018) and Guyana (2019-20), which contain nationally representative household samples, were used. The study was restricted to the three most prevalent religious groups: Christians, Hindus, and Muslims. METHODS: Adult responses to a standardized survey that included questions about use of disciplinary behaviors in the household towards children (aged 1-14 years) were examined in relation to religious affiliation of the head-of-household and multiple covariates. RESULTS: Of the 3518 Suriname households, 62.4 %, 23.3 % and 14.3 % were Christians, Hindus, and Muslims, respectively. Compared to Christians, children in both Hindu and Muslim households had significantly lower odds of being hit with an object in adjusted logistic regression models. However, only Hindus had lower odds of being spanked and Muslims lower odds of exposure to a combined physical and non-physical practice, compared to Christians. Of the 2535 Guyana households, 69.5 %, 23.5 % and 7.0 % were Christians, Hindus, and Muslims, respectively. Children in Hindu, but not Muslim households, had significantly lower odds of being spanked, hit with an object, and exposed to a combine practice in adjusted models compared to Christians. CONCLUSIONS: Partial support was found for a potential influence of religion on some disciplinary behaviors. Further investigation is warranted to identify possible conditions and mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".