MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1014646837

Through the lens of "Dignitas connubii": the judge's active role in marriage nullity cases

2006· article· en· W1014646837 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lynda Robitaille

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyEthnologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le role actif du juge dans les causes en nullite de mariage est explore dans cet article, surtout tel que concu par le Code de 1983 et l'instruction de 2005 Dignitas connubii. L'A. identifie les etapes specifiques dans la procedure ou le juge doit assumer un role actif. Le juge accepte le libelle, determine les chefs, interroge les parties et les temoins, determine les questions qui devront etre posees et evalue les preuves pour en arriver a une juste decision. Il est donc implique dans le processus de recherche de la verite. Lorsque ces tâches du juge ne sont pas remplies, il peut y avoir des consequences sur cette quete de verite. L'A. identifie egalement les prescriptions du Code de 1917 et de l'instruction de 1935 Provida Mater pour mieux comprendre le ius vigens. C'est la responsabilite du juge d'assurer que l'enquete sur la nullite du mariage est entierement accomplie.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia canonicaSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207