The Liturgy of Reconciliation as a Common Celebration of the Church Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reflects on the possibilities of celebrating the liturgy of reconciliation of the entire Church community. The Roman Ordo Paenitentiae contains two forms of community celebration of the Liturgy of Reconciliation. It is aliturgically and theologically justified and appropriate form of sacramental reconciliation. Through the historical development and practice of individual local churches, Iwould like to evaluate the meaning and benefit of celebrating the community celebration of the Liturgy of Reconciliation. This question is still relevant, as evidenced by the celebration of this form of reconciliation during the COVID-19 pandemic. For many believers, the experience of individual confession is traumatic. This confession takes the form of an individual interview and not arenewed liturgy. It is important to realize how community celebration can lead to an understanding of the Church, which is acommunity seeking reconciliation and forgiveness.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".