Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testo completo, integrato con note, della relazione svolta al Convegno internazionale “Luoghi sacri e istituzioni religiose. Prospettive giuridiche e religiose comparate Italia - Balcani - Israele - Palestina” (Roma, LUMSA, 10-11 dicembre 2008), promosso da LUMSA Università (Roma) e Catholic University of America – Columbus School of Law (Washington), nella sessione pomeridiana del 10 dicembre dedicata al tema “Luoghi Sacri e Proprietà Religiose in Italia”; la relazione è destinata alla pubblicazione su "Il diritto ecclesiastico". SOMMARIO: 1. Il problema degli edifici di culto dismessi in Europa – 2. Profili canonistici - 2.1. Le disposizioni del Codice di diritto canonico - 2.2. Criteri generali sul cambiamento d’uso delle chiese. Gli orientamenti della CEI su “I beni culturali della Chiesa in Italia” (1992) - 2.3. I documenti di altri episcopati (Germania, Svizzera) – 3. Il fenomeno della dismissione delle chiese in alcuni paesi - 3.1. Francia - 3.2. Québec (Canada) - 3.3. Stati Uniti – 4. La situazione in Italia - 4.1. La proprietà delle chiese - 4.2. Aspetti finanziari - 4.3. La tutela legale del vincolo di destinazione - 4.4. Le chiese come beni culturali - 4.5. Profili fiscali - 4.6. La recente Istruzione della CEI (2005) – 5. Osservazioni conclusive
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".