MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550252882 · doi:10.3138/tjt.4202b

The Liturgical Reform from 1963 until Today … and Beyond

2016· article· en· W2550252882 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Massimo Faggioli

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcclesiologyConstitutionHoly SeeNominalismAmbivalenceTheologyLiturgyPhilosophyClassicsSociologyLawHistoryPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article recapitulates the importance of the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican ii and of the liturgical reform in terms of the constitution's overall contribution to the theology of Vatican ii, especially its ecclesiology. The article also draws a brief history of the reception and application of the liturgical reform after Vatican ii in a few phases, adding to the periodization proposed by Martin Klöckener: 1964–1968 (the foundations of the liturgical reform), 1968–1974 (edition of liturgical books), 1974–1988 (the beginning of an ambivalence of the papacy about the liturgical reform of Vatican ii), 1988–2000 (signs of centralization and coming back to Latinization), 2001–2005 (Liturgiam Authenticam, 2001), and the pontificate of Benedict xvi (especially the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, 2007). An open issue is the contribution of Francis to this history of reception of the liturgical reform. The final part of the article explores how to move beyond a certain “Vatican ii nominalism” through a renewed look at the ecclesiology of the liturgical constitution, especially in light of the pontificate of Pope Francis and of the important contributions of the liturgical reform to the theological debate in these last fifty years.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207