The Rejection of a Libellus Due to the Lack of Any Foundation Whatsoever (CIC, c. 1505, §2, 4°)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'exigence qu'un libelle soit dote de certains elements essentiels est presente dans la tradition canonique. L'omission de ces elements risque d'amoindrir le libelle qui peut alors etre rejete par le juge. L'un des elements qui est souvent considere dans la praxis du tribunal est le fondement (fundamentum) de la demande. Ce fondement peut etre present ou absent dans la mesure ou il transmet une demande (causa pentendi) basee sur de veritables droits et attestee par des faits verifiables. L'A. determine si la demande est denuee de (out fondement, de quelle facon cette question doit etre evaluee par le juge et la norme a suivre dans l'evaluation de la question (c'est-a-dire, la certitude morale). Finalement, l'A. resume quelques causes provenant de la Rote Romaine et traitant de l'admission ou du rejet d'un libelle. L'etude se termine avec un exemple de decret etablissant l'ouverture d'une enquete preliminaire.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".