Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of priests in the personal prelature of Opus Dei is a juridically established fact. The A. first specifies the task which is incumbent upon these priests, or, to employ a more technical language, the canonical mission assigned to them by the prelate for the service of the common priesthood of the lay faithful of Opus Dei. Then there is discussed their role as cooperators of the prelate for the establishment of a true presbyterium of the prelature, designated for the service of a body of the faithful, that of the Opus Dei, and to provide the corresponding responsibility for the care of souls. Moreover, the message of sanctification in and thru professional work is addressed to all, but in the first place and primarily to the laity who constitute more than 98% of the Opus Dei faithful. There is good reason, therefore, to examine firstly their membership conditions, according to an organic cooperation that is, in itself, the ratio apostolatus which led the Roman Pontiff to erect the prelature, and, secondly, the jurisdiction exercised over these lay persons, a jurisdiction which extends to very specific matters and does not interfere in any way with the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".