Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le patriarche est certes le pere et le chef de l'Eglise patriarcale: il la preside, et y exerce validement son pouvoir dans les limites territoriales de cette Eglise. En depit de cela, les instituts religieux de droit pontifical qui y sont present ne sont pas normalement soumis a l'autorite du patriarche. Le droit etablit toutefois que le patriarche peut exercer son autorite sur ces instituts dans des circonstances specifiques (cf. CCEO, can. 413, 418 § 2), toujours dans les limites du territoire patriarcal. Ces dispositions refletent l'application faite par le legislateur du principe de subsidiarite, un des principes qui ont guide la revision de la legislation canonique orientale. Le present article examine huit cas dans lesquels le CCEO donne au patriarche certains pouvoirs en vue du gouvernement des instituts religieux orientaux de droit pontifical. Outre les six Eglises patriarcales d'Orient, l'etude vaut egalement pour les quatre Eglises orientales archiepiscopales majeures (CCEO, can. 152). Elle montre comment le legislateur a maintenu ou a elargi le pouvoir du patriarche en ce qui concerne ces instituts. Les cas examines sont: 1) la promotion d'un religieux a un office en dehors de son institut (CCEO, can. 431 § 1); 2) l'alienation de biens ecclesiastiques; 3) la construction d'une eglise dans un monastere et la nomination de moines comme cures (CCEO, can. 496); 4) l'indult du sortie pour les moines durant la profession temporaire (CCEO, can. 496 § 2); 5) le renvoi des moines durant la profession temporaire; 6) le recours hierarchique contre un decret de renvoi (CCEO, can. 501 § 3); 7) le transfert a un autre institut religieux (CCEO, can. 544 § 1); 8) l'octroi d'un indult pour quitter une congregation (CCEO, can. 549 § 2, 1°).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".