Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judith et Jacques, qui s'taient connus en 1976 alors qu'ils taient tudiants, se marirent aprs deux ans de cohabitation.Hlas, pour diverses raisons, dont certaines de nature sexuelle, et malgr la naissance de deux enfants, les poux se sparrent dfinitivement en 1983.Deux ans plus tard, Judith s'adressa au Tribunal ecclsiastique de Vancouver pour obtenir la dclaration de nullit de son mariage avec Jacques, invoquant l'incapacit de ce dernier d'en remplir les obligations essentielles.In iure.Les trois hypothses du can. 1095rendent le mariage invalide, mais de faon trs diffrente.Le manque d'usage suffisant de la raison (can.1095, 1) et le grave dfaut de discernement (can.1095, 2) atteignent directement l'acte psychologique de formation du consentement matrimonial, et il n'y a entre les hypothses formules dans ces deux numros qu'une diffrence de degr.Par contre l'incapacit d'assumer (can.1095, 3) atteint la capacit du contractant disposer de l'objet du consentement, hypothse qualitativement diffrente des prcdentes (n 3).L'incapacit du can.1095, 2 suppose de graves dysfonctionnements des processus de connaissance, d'estimation et de dcision impliqus dans la formation du consentement matrimonial.Le n 3 du can.1095 traite de l'incapacit du contractant d'assumer les obligations essentielles du mariage pour des causes de nature psychique.Dans cette dernire hypothse, on est en prsence d'une vritable impossibilit, au moins morale, de raliser l'objet du mariage.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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 it