Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peter Schonenbach presented a detailed review of the process used by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in the Roman Synod dealing with the Ministry of the Bishop held in 2001 and gave a description of the current Canadian practice relating to the forthcoming Roman Synod on the Eucharist.The fundamental principle of the CCCB concerning Roman Synods was that delegate bishops are to speak in the name of their Conference colleagues and not exclusively in their own name.The Conference established a CCCB office in Rome for the duration of the Synod to be staffed by the General Secretary, two Canadian theologians, and one Conference Press Officer.Preparation for the 2001 Synod included meetings of the delegate bishops and theologian consultants to determine the topics to be developed and the interests of the delegate bishops.The delegate bishops shared their presentations with their fellow bishops at the Annual CCCB assembly in September 2001 and received feedback from them.In Rome, daily evening meetings between staff and bishops assessed the progress of the Synod.The theologians produced a tabulation of the major ideas made in the Aula and made this available to interested bishops.Criticisms of the Synodal process by the participating bishops included the use of Latin for the basic texts, in particular amended propositions, the rule that only summaries of interventions could be published, the lack of transparency in the manner in which the final message was progressively emasculated, and some of the Press Conferences which gave the impression of stonewalling rather than transmitting information.The process for the 2005 Synod will be significantly altered due to the $500,000 cut in the budget of the Canadian Conference.There will be no on-site office or designated theologians.Consequently there will be a minimum of teamwork, with the result that the individual viewpoints of the bishops are taking a larger place in the choice of topics.Schonenbach concluded by enumerating the advantages of the principle of delegates speaking on behalf of their Conference colleagues: (1) it brings to the Synod more views and enables each bishop to have greater ownership of the Synodal process; (2) greater synergy is possible and the team approach motivates toward a high degree of excellence; and (3) it allows greater collaboration with professional theologians.David Power commented on the Synodal Lineamenta on Eucharist, first noting that they are an effort to outline the present state of Catholic practice and doctrine on the Eucharist as the source and summit of the life of the Church and of its
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.015 |
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".