Bibliographic record
Abstract
The status of Swiss theological institutions is greatly conditioned by the multicultural aspect of this country. The A. sets the general cultural context, and presents the various types of theological institutions. The main outline of different statutes found in Switzerland, from the faculty within a state university to the haute ecole dependent only on canon law. Three points of view are considered: the university - or haute ecole -, the state, and canon law. The first part concerns the juridical status of Swiss theological institutions. It defines the role of ecclesiastical authorities and of the state in given situations. The second part covers the teaching conditions in various schools and faculties, reviewing the status of professors, criteria for their appointment, academic freedom, as well as the problems surrounding their resignation. A third part presents the evaluation and approval methods for study programs, and the possible forms of collaboration between church and state, as well as their requirements. The fourth and fifth parts cover the questions of grants and recognition of diplomas. They consider also how the grants are shared between church and state for each institution. As for the recognition of diplomas, it is considered from the point of view of the church and state, showing the differences between non-state faculties and faculties within a state university. The conclusion returns to the link between state universities and the different theological faculties and schools.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".