Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1999, la Commission episcopale pour l'oecumenisme de la Conference des eveques catholiques du Canada a soumis au Conseil permanent trois documents importants sur le partage des sacrements du pardon, de l'Eucharistie et de l'onction des malades entre catholiques et protestants baptises. Le premier document enonce la politique generale de partage ; le deuxieme est un guide pastoral pour bien appliquer la politique et le troisieme est une brochure a l'intention des beneficiaires de cette politique de partage. L'A., dans le present article, s'attache a nous fournir un commentaire canonique de cette politique : pourquoi ce partage est-il possible et souhaitable ? Dans quel contexte ? Une grave necessite, oui, mais comment la definir ? L'A. decrit ensuite les cas particuliers ou un tel partage sacramentel peut se faire, par ex. les grandes fetes liturgiques, les fetes de famille, notamment la messe de mariage dans un cas de mariage mixte. Bien, mais tous ces partages ne peuvent etre permis que si on realise les cinq conditions dont parle le c. 844, 4. L'A. termine son article en offrant des suggestions pratiques afin de mieux assurer le respect de la politique tracee par le document et acceptee ensuite par l'eveque, comme, par ex., ne donner son approbation que pour un temps, suivre l'application, preparer les medias d'information, etc. Ce c. 844, 4 est complexe, mais son application sera plus facile avec la politique proposee par la Commission episcopale.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.007 |
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".