Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le questionnaire adressé en 1966 aux conférences épiscopales par le pro-préfet de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi Ottaviani sur les « opinions étranges et audacieuses » intègre la question du péché originel. Celle-ci pose problème depuis longtemps déjà à de nombreux théologiens que le pape Paul VI invite à défendre la doctrine traditionnelle lors d’un symposium romain en juillet de la même année. Le dossier de préparation de la réponse de la conférence épiscopale française confirme le malaise. Mais la réponse officielle reste en retrait pour ne pas compromettre les fruits du concile Vatican II. Les conférences de l’Allemagne, de l’Italie, de l’Espagne, de la Suisse et du Canada accordent peu de place à la question. Il n’en est pas de même pour celles de la Belgique et des Pays-Bas qui prennent leurs distances avec la thèse romaine. Cela n’empêche pas le pape de réaffirmer le dogme du péché originel dans son Credo de juin 1968.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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.
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".