Parents' subjective theories of physical punishment of preschoolers \n \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis entitled Parents' Subjective Theories of Physical Punishment of Preschoolers, first I described subjective theories, what influences them and how they change. Then I introduced the concept of authority, the three types of authority and the concept of child in different parenting styles. In the theoretical introduction, I have particularly focused on punishment in upbringing, especially on physical punishment. I explained what physical punishment means, how it is dealt with in the Slovenian law system, what physical punishment meant in the past and how it is presented today’s society. I have stated the consequences of physical punishment. The main purpose of the thesis was to find out what is the parents' attitude towards physical punishment of preschool children and whether they use it in the upbringing of their preschool child. \nThe results of the survey showed that the most parents follow their own inner feeling when raising their child. The opinion of one third of respondents is against physical punishment and they do not use it. More than a half are not in favour of it, but have used it before, and a few of them think that in some rare situations physical punishment is necessary. A quarter of respondents have never used physical punishment before, while others have used it at least once before. On average, the most frequently used physical punishment is a slap on the bottom, mostly because of the disobedience and inappropriate behaviour of their child. Most parents later regret their actions, but fewer apologise to their child. \n
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".