The Collaboration of Theology and Canon Law in light of Lonergan's Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Peter and Paul Seminar est un groupe de canonistes et de theologiens engages dans une reflexion systematique sur la reception du Concile Vatican II dans les structures de l'Eglise, surtout a partir de la perspective du droit canonique. Le modus operandi du seminaire peut etre compris a travers l'oeuvre de Bernard Longergan tel que presentee dans Method in Theology. Dans cet article, l'A. considere le travail du seminaire et cherche a articuler plus completement ses hypotheses telles qu'appliquees a la relation entre la theologie et le droit canonique. Cet article est divise en trois sections: premierement, une description du travail du seminaire; deuxiemement, un examen d'etudes recentes sur la relation entre la theologie et le droit canonique, avec une attention et une application de la methode empirique de Lonergan; troisiemement, une proposition pour comprendre la methodologie refletee dans le seminaire a la lumiere des specialites fonctionnelles de Lonergan. L'A. conclut qu'il existe un besoin pour une etude systematique plus approfondie de l'interaction entre la theologie et le droit canonique, ainsi que pour des structures institutionnelles pour le dialogue et la collaboration.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".