MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415045802 · doi:10.7202/1118929ar

Ecclesiastical Properties as Common Goods

2024· article· en· W4415045802 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Davide Dimodugno

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationEstateWork (physics)AlienationScope (computer science)Private propertyPossession (linguistics)Reuse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to recent studies, there are about 600,000 places of worship and several thousand monasteries and convents in Europe. The process of secularization, the decrease and displacement of the population, and the reduction of vocations to the sacred life can be held responsible for the redundancy of the assets of the Catholic Church. These buildings represent an impressive heritage of faith, work and creativity of the communities who built them over the centuries. Most of them are considered “cultural heritage” by the legislation of the European States, because of their historical, cultural, and artistic values. Until now, the main solution to this phenomenon consisted in the alienation of these properties either to municipalities or private investors, sometimes for new uses of general interest, sometimes as residential buildings, or commercial activities. However, selling and disposing of these goods by ecclesiastical bodies cannot always be the only and preferable solution. Drawing from the analysis of some case studies of disused churches, convents and monasteries in Italy, this paper aims to investigate the role of civil society participation in the regeneration process and the possibility of applying “collaboration pacts” for the management of “common goods”, in spite of their legal status (public or private ownership). In light of the European scope of the phenomenon, this article provides a comparison based on the legal instrument of “strategic plans”, drawn up by the diocesan bishop and local authorities in Flanders (Belgium). This article aims to show that the adaptive reuse of ecclesiastical properties can be approached in an innovative way by using the theory of the commons and related legal solutions. This could be a great opportunity for the cultural, social and economic development of cities and villages, all the more so if the whole civil society is involved in the decision of the new functions and subsequent management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSens publicSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207