Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that facts have contributed to the evolution of jurisprudence as much as if not more than doctrine. Simulation is an area where this truth has often been confirmed. But there is a lot of work still to be done. For example, should not canon law require, for a true consent to be expressed, a positive act of the will, in the same way as it is required in the case of exclusion (c. 1086, 2)? This would mean a positive inclusion of the nature of marriage, of its essential properties or of one of its essential elements. Limiting himself to cases coming from Europe and the Americas in the last 30 years or so, the A. studied Rotal jurisprudence and intends to show that valid marriage consent must be a positive act of the will, as much as the act of exclusion in the case of simulation must be a positive act of the will, mostly because of the interpersonal nature of marriage. The A. then elaborates on the juridical consequences of such a requirement, using the epistemological process of Saint Thomas (objections and answers). He then concludes that this would be a new ground of nullity, none other than the logical and unavoidable consequence of the evolution of the prevalent Rotal jurisprudence.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".