Position Statement CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools and supports removal of legal sanctions for its use. Further, NASP resolves to educate the public about the effects of corporal punishment and to provide alternatives to its use, and will encourage research and the dissemination of information about corporal punishment effects and alternatives. Corporal punishment of students is the intentional infliction of pain or discomfort and/or the use of physical force upon a student in order to stop or change behavior (Hyman & Perone, 1998). In the United States, the most typical form of school corporal punishment is striking a student’s buttocks with a wooden paddle by a school authority because it is believed that the student has disobeyed a rule. Notably, the United States and parts of Canada remain the only developed countries to allow corporal punishment (Robinson, Funk, Beth, & Bush, 2005). Within the United States, corporal punishment is only allowed in schools; it has been banned in prisons and mental health institutions (Andero & Stewart, 2002). Between the 1980s and the mid-1990s, the use of corporal punishment in schools declined rapidly due to waning public acceptance, increased litigation against school boards and educators regarding
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".