The Apostolic Signatura's Recent Declaration on the Necessity of Using Expert in Marriage Nullity Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les cc. 1680 du CIC et 1366 du CCEO obligent un juge a recourir aux services d'un ou de plusieurs experts afin d'obtenir la certitude morale requise dans les proces matrimoniaux de defaut de consentement pour maladie mentale, « a moins qu'en raison des circonstances, cela ne s'avere manifestement inutile ». Devant l'impossibilite d'obtenir des expertises psychologiques ou psychiatriques dans son pays, un vicaire judiciaire a demande a la Signature Apostolique de se prononcer sur la necessite d'avoir recours a un expert dans toutes les causes d'incapacite consensuelle en raison d'une anomalie psychique. Le 16 juin 1998, la Signature donnait sa reponse sous forme de declaration et l'A. en explique les neuf grands points fournissant les principes fondamentaux et les directives susceptibles d'assister les juges et les experts dans leurs fonctions. Les services d'un expert sont requis dans les cas d'incapacite consensuelle, mais l'exigence n'est pas absolue. Il existe deux exceptions a la regle : si le dossier contient un document probant decrivant la condition psychique de la partie ou si l'anomalie psychique est clairement demontree et prouvee par les temoignages au dossier. Dans cette meme declaration, la Signature rappelle les criteres entourant la certitude morale requise pour rendre un jugement valide et l'obligation du juge d'evaluer les conclusions de l'expert en relation avec les autres preuves au dossier.
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".