Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article brings into question the theoretical foundation and practical utility of subdividing a diocese into multiple parishes. The modern, pluralistic, mobile, and democratic society in which Christianity is now called to evangelize calls for a new way of setting up the territorial limits of a parish. The parish is defined by the stability of its establishment and the nature of its pastoral care. The territory is not an essential element and it has become increasingly questionable to define a parish according to civil boundaries. Several parishes are no longer able to fully accomplish this mission, either because of the society's estrangement from parish life or the shortage of priests or both. Accordingly, the A. suggests a remodelling of the parish network. He maintains that the simple suppression of old parishes is not the answer but rather the creation of new parishes which have the means of offering essential pastoral care, of building the ecclesial community, and of fulfilling their mission in a particular area. As a first step, a single pastoral unit can be formed by a joint cooperation between existing but now inadequate parishes and the pooling of activities and resources. Gradually, this pastoral unit will become the new parish, a community of communities (churches, homes, schools, etc.) ensuring the plena cura animarum but flexible enough to evolve with the inevitable demographical variances within a population. The A. also draws attention to the fact that the parish is not the only means of evangelization today; base communities - associations, retreat centres, theology faculties, temporal Christian institutions-have assumed an important role and, with the parish, form the entire diocesan Church. He ends his article by underlining the importance of placing the community before services to be rendered. A parish must not become a convenience establishment for the celebration of sacraments. It must foster the involvement of all, priests, deacons and l
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".