MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284406391

The remedy of harm in accord with canon 128

2004· article· en· W2284406391 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margaret Poll Chalmers

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesEthnologyHarmPolitical scienceLawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1983, une maxime de droit naturel fut concretisee en une obligation canonique de reparer le tort fait a quelqu'un. Le can. 128 encourage la reparation volontaire d'un dommage cause et fournit ainsi une assise legale pour que toute personne ayant subi un dommage puisse revendiquer ses droits et les defendre devant un for ecclesiastique. Il permet aussi que l'Eglise puisse mettre ce principe en application et imposer la reparation du dommage inflige. Cet article traite du sens du can. 128, de sa nature, ainsi que des procedures et des methodes de reparation. Il tente de demontrer que le canon a ete inexploite jusqu'ici comme fondement dans les demandes devant un for ecclesiastique de reparations pour dommages causes. Le canon gagnerait a etre utilise comme un canon de base ayant ses propres applications plutot qu'un simple appui philosophique et canonique pour d'autres principes juridiques.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia canonicaSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207