Kevin E. MCKENNA, For the Defense. The Work of Nineteenth Century American Canonists in the Protection of Rights, Collection Gratianus, Section Monographs, Wilson & Lafleur, Montréal 2014, 196 pp., ISBN 978-2-89689-070-5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
trimonio protestante en España y, después, sobre la situación del matrimonio anglicano en Gran Bretaña.En cuanto al matrimonio ortodoxo, se introduce explicando las principales diferencias con respecto al matrimonio canónico, por ejemplo, la mayor relevancia de la función del ministro sagrado, cuya intervención pasa a ser un elemento esencial del rito matrimonial.Dedica el autor su atención después al matrimonio ortodoxo en España, y, para finalizar, ofrece la situación en Grecia, con el objetivo de mostrar un ejemplo de aplicación de una legislación civil al matrimonio ortodoxo.El último capítulo es el de la Profª Moreno, que nos presenta una valoración crítica de la eficacia civil de los matrimonios de las confesiones con notorio arraigo.En este ámbito ha incidido especialmente la promulgación de la Ley 15/2015, de 2 de julio, de la Jurisdicción Voluntaria.Entre las novedades de esta Ley, como se explica en el capítulo, se da la posibilidad de ejercer el derecho de contraer matrimonio conforme al propio rito, que reconocía la Ley Orgánica de Libertad Religiosa como contenido del derecho de Libertad Religiosa, a miembros de confesiones religiosas que no tuvieran suscritos pactos con el Esta-IUS CANONICUM / VOL.56 / 2016
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.061 |
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".