MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W111507908

DOES A VASECTOMY CONSTITUTE AN IRREGULARITY TO THE SACRAMENT OF ORDERS? A RESPONSE TO JAMES A. CORIDEN'S CRITIQUE

2009· article· en· W111507908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian J. Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyEthnologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans un article publie dans Studia canonica en 2004, l'A. avait conclu qu'une vasectomie est incluse dans le du terme de canon 1041, 5 ° du code 1983. Cependant, James Coriden a critique cette conclusion et ce present article est une reponse a l'evaluation de Coriden. Par une analyse de canon 17, l'A. demontre que, lorsqu'un terme a un sens douteux et obscur, l'interprete doit recourir a des lieux paralleles, aux fins et aux circonstances de la loi, et a l'esprit du legislateur. L'A. conclut que la vasectomie est vraiment comprise dans le canonique de mutilation et, lorsqu'executee avec une connaissance complete et un consentement delibere, peut constituer l'irregularite du canon 1041, 5 °.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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