Through the lens of "Dignitas connubii": the judge's active role in marriage nullity cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".