Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les lois sur l'octroi et l'usage des facultes sont nombreuses et complexes, et il arrive souvent qu'il y ait une confusion quant a la validite de la delegation d'un pretre pour administrer le sacrement de confirmation. En lien etroit avec ce point est le principe canonique d'erreur commune et la determination de son application dans un cas ou il est clair qu'une exigence pour la validite n'a pas ete observee. Les discussions canoniques sur l'erreur commune ont porte en grande partie sur les sacrements de la penitence et du mariage. Cette etude est une analyse de la faculte pour confirmer et l'application du principe canonique de l'erreur commune lorsqu'il est question de validite. L'A. presente la discussion en trois grandes divisions. La premiere partie examine le canon 144 et l'erreur commune. La deuxieme partie porte sur l'evolution du droit concernant le pretre comme ministre de la confirmation. La troisieme partie considere une variete de questions reliees a la confirmation et l'erreur commune, et conclut avec plusieurs recommandations.
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 | 0.020 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.398 | 0.297 |
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".