MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312662271 · doi:10.15581/016.47.14198

El respeto a la libertad religiosa de los contrayentes y la obligatoriedad de la celebración civil del matrimonio previa a la religiosa. Discusión doctrinal y propuestas "de lege ferenda" en el Derecho comparado centroeuropeo

2017· article· es· W4312662271 on OpenAlexaff
María J. Roca

Bibliographic record

VenueIus Canonicum · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La discusión que se planteó en Centroeuropa acerca de la conveniencia de mantener la obligatoriedad del 'primado' del matrimonio civil, ofrece nuevas reflexiones sobre la relación entre la forma del matrimonio y sus elementos estructurales básicos, como la heterosexualidad. Del estudio de las leyes de matrimonio civil de Austria se concluye que para el respeto de las formas religiosas de celebración del matrimonio parece mejor la fundamentación en la libertad religiosa de los contrayentes que en la vertiente institucional. La doctrina de Lutero considera el matrimonio una cuestión civil, por ello los fieles evangélicos aceptan el régimen matrimonial establecido por la autoridad secular, si se respetan los elementos del matrimonio natural. El Derecho civil alemán no ha llamado a las uniones homosexuales matrimonio. Si la normativa civil del matrimonio se aparta de los elementos comunes con el matrimonio natural, los ciudadanos evangélico-luteranos se verán obligados a influir más eficazmente en el régimen del matrimonio civil o a impulsar el cambio hacia un sistema de matrimonio electivo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIus CanonicumSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207