MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7032034824

Ecclesiology

2013· article· en· W7032034824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America (Catholic Theological Society of America) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Selection and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBishopsSynodDelegateObituaryChristian ministryEcclesiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.210 · 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