The Internal Forum: Notions and Juridical Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le systeme canonique, le for externe et le for interne constituent les deux modes d'exercice du pouvoir de gouvernement. Dans le present article, l'A. s'interroge sur la notion du for interne. Apres avoir montre que la doctrine canonique du for interne trouvait ses racines dans les notions medievales de « for penitentiel » et de « for de la conscience », il montre que les juristes qui ont rendu compte de cette doctrine ont toujours eu de la difficulte a cemer la fin propre d'un acte juridique du for interne, car on y voyait une tension entre le benefice prive et le bien commun. Dans le Code de 1983, c'est au c. 130 que l'on trouve la norme generale qui regit le for interne. L'A. montre comment cette norme s'applique partout dans le Code et il formule une distinction entre le for interne sacramentel et le for interne extra-sacramentel, pour enfin conclure par de breves remarques au sujet du Penitentiaire apostolique et du chanoine penitentiaire, ou encore la personne designee pour remplir ce role, dans les dioceses ou il n'existe pas de chapitre de chanoines.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".