MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W5057846

The Rejection of a Libellus Due to the Lack of Any Foundation Whatsoever (CIC, c. 1505, §2, 4°)

2009· article· en· W5057846 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William L. Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyEthnologyPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia canonicaSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207