Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article est une analyse de la decision coram Turnaturi (13 mai 2004) sous le chef d'exclusion du bonum coniugum. Ceci est la troisieme cause etudiee par la Rote sous ce chef depuis la promulgation du Code de 1983. Le cas rapporte une dynamique psychologique et interpersonnelle de la vie des parties qui est interessante, quelquefois comportant des temoignages contradictoires. Cette sentence rotale est interessante parce qu'elle offre une analyse approfondie des principes juridiques applicables a l'exclusion du bonus coniugum et fournit une analyse critique des faits de la cause. L'A. en conclut que la sentence consolide certainement les principes de jurisprudence deja developpes dans d'autres sentences rotales sous le chef d'exclusion du bonum coniugum. La sentence affirme de nouveau le principe que le bonum coniugum ne doit plus etre vu comme n'ayant aucun rapport juridique avec l'alliance du mariage. Cette sentence de Tumaturi renforcit certainement la possibilite pour les tribunaux locaux de considerer les cas de nullite de mariage sous le chef d'intention contraire au bonum coniugum.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".