MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554201957

Le non-chrétiens,sujets de devoirs et de droits dans le droit canonique

2001· article· fr· W1554201957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacques Percebois

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanon lawObligationMagisteriumCode (set theory)ParagraphLawPhilosophyHumanitiesSociologyTheologyPolitical scienceSet (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canon law binds only the baptised members of the Catholic Church. However, when dealing with the missionary activity of the Church, it also concerns all other human beings. Ancient concepts, such as pagans or infidels, are no longer used in the law, and hardly ever occur in the writings of the magisterium. Among such former notions, barbarians stands out with the richest history. Analyses of the term by Bartolome de Las Casas and Jose de Acosta in the 16 th century are unavoidable landmarks in the evolution of missionary canon law. Their conclusions are opposite: Las Casas disqualifies any operational use of the term, whereas Acosta's subcategories justify, to a limited extent, the intervention of the secular arm in evangelisation. His line could still be felt in the Church's teaching as late as 1940. Modern canon law has developed as substitutes the negative categories of non-baptised, non-believers, and non-christians. These too are unsatisfactory, but no alternatives have emerged, although the 1917 Code had introduced the notion of homo viator (the wayfarer) (can. 745). While church law generally abstains from imposing any definite obligation on those outside of communion, the 1983 Code does so in can. 748 1: All are bound to seek the truth... when they have found it, then... they are bound... to embrace and keep it. That the Oriental Code omitted the whole paragraph shows how difficult it is for canon law to say something meaningful in this respect without reawakening old controversies about missionary methods. The solution presupposes a truthful dialogue on human rights with systems of law different from the one which underlies canon law in its present form.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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