Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, after Vatican II which defined marriage as «a community of life and love» and where carnal love is not «secondary» anymore and does not have to be justified by procreative intent, how is one to understand the «bonum prolis» in theology and in law? The A., a well-known Belgian judicial vicar, studies this very problem. First, he writes a synopsis of the theology of the ends of marriage, whether before or after Vatican II, in the major documents of the magisterium. He then follows Rotal jurisprudence on the ends of marriage and its essential elements: in the 1917 Code, its commentators and Rotal decisions; then in the 1983 Code where he underlines the to-and-froing between the exclusion of children and that of procreative acts. More specifically, he deals with the nullity of these marriages by commenting two Rotal decisions, one that argues from the structure of the act of exclusion and the other, from the meaning of conjugal intercourse. Later he asks questions in the modern context of responsible parenthood and artificial insemination. He ends by asking himself if the «bonum prolis» today is as important theologically and canonically as in preceding centuries. For the substance, probably, but the language is different: we now speak more easily of the refusal to be open to procreation than refusing acts per se procreative; the finality of marriage and the intention to attain this objective is more important than in the past.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".