MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W159178426

THE QUASI-PARISH: A DEFINITE COMMUNITY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN A PARTICULAR CHURCH

2009· article· en· W159178426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John A. Renken

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnologyHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La legislation du Code de 1917 a permis l'erection de quasi-paroisses seulement en territoire missionnaire. Le Code de 1983, pourtant, permet l'etablissement de quasi-paroisses dans chaque eglise particuliere. Cet article retrace le developpement du canon 516 § 1 sur la quasi-paroisse et la compare a la paroisse, qui est la structure ordinaire pour la charge pastorale dans une eglise particuliere. L'auteur identifie des similarites et des differences fondamentales entre les quasi-paroisses et les paroisses. Il conclut qu'une quasi-paroisse est une personne publique juridique; que l'eveque diocesain doit entendre le conseil presbyteral avant d'eriger, de modifier ou de supprimer une quasi-paroisse; et que le quasi-parochus a les memes munera et la stabilite paroissiale d'un parochus. Il identifie egalement les circonstances, extrinseque et intrinseque, qui peuvent ou ne peuvent pas etre l'occasion d'etablir une quasi-paroisse plutot qu'une paroisse. L'auteur conclut que la quasi-paroisse est une option, bien que non favorisee, a etre consideree par les eveques diocesains lorsqu'ils modifient des communautes dans leurs eglises particulieres en reponse aux changements des circonstances sociales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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