MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981982751 · doi:10.2143/etl.83.1.2021743

The Validity of Marriage in Cases of Captivity

2007· article· en· W1981982751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoffrey D. Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueEphemerides Theologicae Lovanienses · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawAdversaryState (computer science)Spanish Civil WarStatement (logic)SociologyCaptivityQuarter (Canadian coin)PhilosophyPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores Epistula 36 of Innocent I, bishop of Rome in the first quarter of the fifth century, one of the earliest known ecclesial decisions on the validity of a marriage, which was upheld in this instance. By asking questions about the relationship of the recipient of the letter to the parties involved, why Innocent intervened, and the civil implications of a spousal abduction by a foreign enemy we gain insight into a crucial stage of the Christianisation of marriage. It is argued that Innocent wrote to Probus probably because he was personally connected with the couple, that Innocent rejected the Roman law on the dissolution of marriage due to abduction and enslavement, and that his decision, which had only ecclesial and not civil effect, marks an important moment in church-state relations. The reference to divorce should be taken as a simple statement that this Roman practice was not relevant here as it was not a case of the Matthean exception.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.059
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEphemerides Theologicae LovaniensesSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207