Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous nous intéressons à la façon particulière dont Diderot envisage le caractère productif de l'esprit en mettant en rapport certains aspects de son épistémologie et de son esthétique avec trois lieux théoriques hérités de ses prédécesseurs. D'abord, ce problème touche la question de l'invention en tant que méthode de construction du discours peu à peu assimilée à une méthode de découverte par Bacon et Descartes. Dans un second temps, il semble que Diderot, qui fait grand cas de la conjecture, définisse avant tout la connaissance comme une anticipation, prolongeant ainsi ce retour de l'épicurisme dans la pensée moderne. Enfin, du point de vue esthétique, Diderot développe une conception du modèle idéal qui s'accorde avec une théorie nominaliste de l'abstraction comme production d'un instrument conceptuel. Ces trois facettes de la pensée de Diderot contribuent, à notre sens, à la formation d'une véritable théorie matérialiste de la connaissance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".