The penal process: the preliminary investigation in light of the essential norms of the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le code de 1983, le processus penal debute avec les canons 1717-1719 traitant des dispositions de l'enquete prealable (de praevia investigatione). Le present article, a la lumiere d'un document intitule Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests andDeacons, emis par la Conference des Eveques catholiques des Etats-Unis et exclusivement pour le territoire de la Conference, est une etude des normes canoniques concernant l'enquete prealable dans des cas d'abus sexuels sur des mineur(e)s. L'A. identifie differents documents du Saint-Siege, dont le moto proprio sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, qui traitent de ces cas. L'A. discute aussi du contexte dans lequel les documents doivent etre compris et appliques. Suit une analyse detaillee du processus de l'enquete prealable. Processus excessivement important puisqu'il permettra a l'eveque diocesain de decider si le dossier doit etre envoye a la Congregation pour la doctrine de la foi ou si, faute d'elements suffisants, le dossier doit etre ferme. Une attention particuliere est donnee aux droits de l'accuse ainsi qu'aux lourdes responsabilites de l'eveque diocesain.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".