MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W153647924

Academic Aspects of Priestly Formation in the 1983 Code of Canon Law

2008· article· en· W153647924 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArtEthnologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aux canons 244-258, le Code de 1983 identifie des principes fondamentaux pour la formation au presbyterat. Cette etude examine les modifications legislatives depuis le CIC/1917 et offre des observations sur differents aspects de la formation presbyterale, specialement en distinguant ce qui est essentiel pour la formation academique. Seulement quelques normes portent sur la promotion des candidats d'âge mur, la majorite se concentrant sur les jeunes hommes ayant l'intention d'etre ordonnes au presbyterat. La formation academique est acquise au grand seminaire ou dans une universite, un college ou une faculte. Dans le Code, le legislateur n'offre que la structure de la formation presbyterale. Les autres details concernant le programme de six ans d'etudes se retrouvent dans la Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, une ratio nationalis et une ratio localis. Le but de la formation presbyterale est une education theorique et pratique et une formation des futurs pretres qui soient adequates.

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.

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 score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.209 · 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