MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W122928159

The Validty of the Acts of a Suspect Judge

2010· article· en· W122928159 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael-andreas Nobel

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La loi ecarte tout soupcon de conflit d'interet en prescrivant au juge de s'abstenir a priori de juger dans les cas ou celui-ci pourrait avoir un interet personnel, une affection ou une inimitie a l'egard des personnes ou de l'objet du proces selon le canon 1448. Si les officiers qui doivent s'abstenir pour les motifs stipules dans le canon 1448 ne le font pas, la partie peut les recuser. Si la recusation est admise, d'autres personnes non suspectes sont nommees mais le tribunal et le degre de juridiction restent les memes. Les actes accomplis par le juge avant qu'il ne soit recuse sont valides. Ceux qui ont ete realises apres la requete en recusation mais avant son acceptation sont rescindables si la partie en fait la demande dans les dix jours qui suivent l'acceptation de la recusation. Les actes accomplis par le juge entre la proposition et l'admission de la recusation sont valides.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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