Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current profiles of the principle “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur” The origin and historical transmission of the principle Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur are well known to the science of canon law. But it is necessary to deepen the constitutional content of this principle, as it does not justify any way of exercising primacy. The content and purpose of the power of the Roman Pontiff, in the light of contemporary Theology and Canon law, explain the scope and limits in the application of the Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur. SOMMARIO- 1. La sensibilità sociale attorno all'esercizio del governo - 2. Due recenti casi giudiziari in cui è stato invocato il principio del “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”: il cosiddetto “processo del secolo” nella Città del Vaticano (2023); la controversia Cuatrecasas versus Martínez Sanz - 3. Importanza di approfondire il contenuto diaconale e spirituale del primato del Papa - 4. Il principio “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur” e le cause di cessazione nell'ufficio del Romano Pontefice: Trasmissione e significato del principio “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”; Collegamento del principio “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur” con le cause di cessazione nell'ufficio del Romano Pontefice - 5. Il discorso sui limiti della potestà primaziale - 6. La promozione effettiva della collegialità episcopale - 7. Prudente deconcentrazione organica dell'esercizio del potere - 8. Rispetto della legittima diversità e prudente promozione della vita associativa.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".