Do child disciplinary practices differ between Cuba and the Dominican Republic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cross-country comparisons of disciplinary practices may be problematic for at least two reasons. They may rely on questionable composite measures, i.e., combining substantially different individual disciplinary practices into a single measure, and compare vastly different countries increasing risk of unmeasured confounders. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether individual disciplinary practices differed between two countries that share many characteristics, Cuba and the Dominican Republic (DR). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Caregivers in the home (85.6% probable biological mothers) participating in nationally representative household surveys in 2019 from Cuba and the DR, N=7,374 and 14,772, respectively. METHODS: Caregivers were asked whether randomly selected children in the household were exposed to any of 11 disciplinary practices. Prevalence of each practice across two age groups (1-4 and 5-14 years) were compared across country. Binomial logistic regressions were used to determine whether country was an independent predictor of practices. RESULTS: Across both age groups, a higher proportion of children in the DR were exposed to three of six types of physical punishments ("spanked", "hit with object", "hit on head"), whereas prevalence of being "hit on limb" was higher in Cuba. For both age groups, "psychological aggression" practices ("yelling" and "name calling") were more prevalent in the DR as were two of the three "non-violent practices". All the same relationships remained significant in the same direction in adjusted logistic regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Given the differences in specific disciplinary practices between these similar countries, additional investigations to understand what contextual factors may underpin these variations are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".