MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312759004 · doi:10.15581/016.29.18307

Clasificación de las normas escritas canónicas

2018· article· es· W4312759004 on OpenAlexaff
Eduardo Labandeira

Bibliographic record

VenueIus Canonicum · 2018
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LABANDEIRA SUMARIO. 1. ANTECEDENTES HISTORICOS. 1. Noción de ley. 2. Noción de precepto.II.LA SITUACION A RAIZ DEL COmGO DEL 83.III.TIPOS ACTUALES DE NORMAS ESCRITAS.1. Las leyes.2. Los decretos legislativos por delegación.3. Los decretosleyes por aprobación específica o ratificación.4. Los decretos ejecutivos por atribución de competencia o habilitación (reglamentos independientes).5. Los decretos ejecutorios.6. Las instrucciones.IV.ALGUNAS CONCLUSIONES Y APUCACIONES.Entre los muchos problemas que suscita la interpretación del Código del 83, no es el menor el referente al contenido de los cánones 29 a 35, que resultan no sólo oscuros sino también insuficientes para distinguir las diversas clases de normas escritas en Derecho canónico.A este tema van, pues, dedicadas las siguientes observaciones, que pretenden aportar una posible clasificación de esas normas.l.ANTECEDENlES HISTORICOS A 10 largo de los siglos, la praxis y la ciencia canónica han utilizado una variada terminología para designar las normas de gobierno.Sabido es que el título segundo del primer libro de las Decretales está dedicado a las constituciones, y que bajo esta denominación se comprende todo el derecho escrito de carácter general, que propiamente puede llamarse leyl.Cuando esas normas son emitidas por el Romano Pontífice se denominan 1.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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