An update on the scientific evidence for and against the legal banning of disciplinary spanking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004, the Canadian Supreme Court upheld the right of Canadian parents to use open-handed swats to a child’s buttocks to correct child misbehavior, but only as developmentally appropriate (i.e., between the ages of 2 and 12). Some social scientists believe that the Canadian Supreme Court did not go far enough. These researchers support total bans on physical discipline. Other social scientists support Canada’s existing age-specific legislation. This commentary provides a concise overview of physical discipline research since 2004, emphasizing the methodological rigor of the research used to argue for and against total spanking bans. Advocates of total bans primarily cite reviews based on bivariate correlations and non-randomized methods known to be inherently biased against disciplinary actions (i.e., methods known to make all disciplinary responses to defiance appear harmful). In contrast, those who support Canada’s existing legislation have systematically compared methods known to be inherently biased in opposite directions (i.e., harmful- and beneficial-looking), to demonstrate that the true average effect size of customary spanking on child outcomes is likely very near zero. These researchers also emphasize four randomized clinical trials in which spanking increased compliance in defiant preschoolers. Other issues discussed in this commentary are: the developmental trajectories for children who do not learn to comply with parental directives while they are young; and children’s risk of assault in countries with and without total bans. We conclude that the most rigorous empirical studies and available crime statistics validate the appropriateness of Canada’s existing legislation on disciplinary spanking.
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 | 0.036 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".