Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tout au long de l'histoire legislative des canons des Eglises orientales sur la penitence, il a ete recommande a plusieurs reprises que les canons soient conformes aux normes paralleles de l'Eglise latine afin d'assurer dans toute l'Eglise catholique l'uniformite de l'administration de ce sacrement important. En fait, comme les comptes-rendus de la Commission orientale (PCCICOR) le demontrent, il nous est permis de suggerer que les divers groupes charges d'elaborer des normes sur la penitence ont effectivement travaille afin de parvenir a une certaine conformite entre les Codes oriental et latin sur ce sujet. Nonobstant la conformite realisee entre les Codes oriental et latin au sujet de la penitence, il y a encore un certain nombre de canons qui sont uniques a l'un ou l'autre de ces Codes. De fait, il existe des normes paralleles entre les Codes oriental et latin et qui different considerablement dans leur facon de celebrer le sacrement de la reconciliation. Cette etude unique represente une premiere tentative de comparer les normes orientales et latines regissant le sacrement de penitence (CCEO cc. 718-738; CIC cc. 959-991). Dans l'introduction, l'histoire de la legislation des canons du CCEO au sein du PCCICOR est retracee dans le but de demontrer comment une conformite toujours plus grande des normes orientales et latines sur la penitence a ete realisee par les differents groupes d'experts. La premiere partie de l'article decrit les normes qui sont uniques au Code oriental, tandis que la deuxieme partie examine les canons qui sont caracteristiques du Code latin. Finalement, la troisieme partie de cet article compare d'autres normes paralleles qui different de facon significative sur des aspects concernant l'administration du sacrement de penitence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".