MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W67843256

Contrasts in the Western and Eastern approaches to marriage

2001· article· en· W67843256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick J. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyEthnologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'A. explore les differences entre le CIC et le CCEO dans leur description de la nature fondamentale du mariage et en donne une explication en situant son etude dans le contexte historique et theologique d'une diversite de pensee entre l'Occident et l'Orient. Les textes des deux Codes sont analyses et critiques a la lumiere de l'histoire et de Vatican II. En comparant les canons pertinents des deux legislations, l'A. demontre comment l'«alliance» matrimoniale est presentee differemment dans le Code oriental et dans le Code latin, lequel utilise aussi une methode tres distinctive par l'emploi du terme «contrat». Les diverses approches dans les deux descriptions de la sacramentalite du mariage chretien sont examinees et, en dernier, l'article observe les divergences des Codes dans la determination de ce qui precisement constitue un mariage: la loi latine est explicite, alors que la legislation orientale ne se prononce pas.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.123 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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