Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'A. examine la question de la vasectomie en relation aux irregularites pour le sacrement de l'ordre. Des opinions variees ont des approches contradictoires au sujet de vasectomie associee a la mutilation telle que mentionnee au c. 1041, 5°. La premiere section etudie la definition de « mutilation » en considerant l'enseignement de quelques documents papaux et la position d'un certain nombre de moralistes. L'etudie mene a la conclusion que la vasectomie est certainement comprise dans la definition du mot « mutilation ». Les deux sections suivantes considerent la legislation du Code de droit canonique de 1917 et du Code de droit canonique de 1983 et leurs commentaires respectifs, demontrant comment ces codes ont traite la question de vasectomie et de mutilation. Apres avoir pese les arguments canoniques, l'A. conclut qu'un homme ayant subi une vasectomie peut possiblement encourir l'irregularite des ce. 1041, 5°; 1044, Β 1, 1°; et 1044, Β 1, 3°, pourvu que les exigences pour encourir l'irregularite soient presentes. L'article considere la procedure d'enquete qui est necessaire dans de tels cas et fournit plusieurs decisions pertinentes. L'A. conclut avec quelques reflexions canoniques et pastorales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".