MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W162509144

LES PARRAINS: NOTE CANONIQUE SUR UN PROBLÈME PASTORAL DANS CANONS 873 ET 874, §2 DU CIC

2008· article· fr· W162509144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean Trudeau

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanonWitnessLegislationBaptismCanon lawCode (set theory)Political scienceLawOrder (exchange)PhilosophyTheologySociologySet (abstract data type)EconomicsComputer scienceAesthetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some of the canonical norms for baptismal are verv specific and have occasioned disagreements between parents and priests, deacons, pastoral ministers, and chancellors. In this article, the author reviews the previous and current legislation in order to understand the rationale of canons 873 and 874, §2. Canon 873 requires only one sponsor but also allows both a male and female sponsor. More and more often though, parents present two sponsors of the same gender, and one of them is admitted as a This article examines the provisions of canons 873 and 874, §2 in light of the 1917 Code, the Council of Trent, and the evolution of the 1983 Code. It is proposed that canon 873 no longer has a raison d'etre. This canon is based on spiritual affinity arising from baptism and its accompanying impediment for marriage, established in the previous legislation. Both reasons no longer exist in the 1983 Code. However, canon 873 continues to be the ius vigens until this legislation is abolished. The author also demonstrates, concerning canon 874, §2, that a baptized Catholic cannot be admitted as a witness.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.242
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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