Bibliographic record
Abstract
The A. posits that the subject of rights and duties of the faithful must be understood from the broader historical perspective. Such an historical exposition will assist to contextualize this theme more properly. Thus, the A. cites examples from the Justinian's Digest and the works of other jurists, especially from the Middle Ages such as Gratian. The A. cites examples concerning the right to marriage, natural law, personal liberty, and property rights, to illustrate their evolution. Various references are given also from the 1917 and 1983 Codes and also from papal teachings. Also the evolution of personal rights in civil society is briefly examined. This historical trajectory will establish a necessary foundation and perspective to understand the emergence of the notion of rights of persons in the Church. The A. observes that a lucid examination of the theoretical complexities and the potentials of the ius vigens as represented in the two Codes leads to the conclusion that the Church has not yet established appropriate structures for the protection and vindication of rights. With time and experience and historical awareness, canonists will be better positioned to assist in the development of these structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".