MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566928918 · doi:10.7202/1064417ar

Raison scientifique et philosophie du langage

2008· article· fr· W1566928918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Louis Léonhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: La philosophie grecque a proposé une première théorie de la science, considérée comme apte à produire un savoir certain ou épistémè. Cette théorie contient un modèle de la raison de l'homme de science (la logique dite formelle) qui permet de reconnaître les raisonnements rationnels. Le principe de contradiction est le pilier central du système. Pour être vraie, une théorie scientifique doit satisfaire les conditions d'universalité, de nécessité (déterminisme) et d'intelligibilité de la cause. La science classique a renoncé à deux de ces critères : Newton admet qu'il ne connaît pas la cause matérielle de l'attraction de deux corps à distance ; par ailleurs, l'usage des probabilités impose d'abandonner le déterminisme absolu des phénomènes. Et cependant, la science classique garde la signification aristotélicienne de la vérité. L'invention des géométries non-euclidiennes a bouleversé notre conception de la logique : il est admis que deux axiomes contradictoires peuvent être pensés vrais simultanément. Un autre modèle de la raison émerge (les logiques dites symboliques) qui impose de redéfinir la notion de vérité : la relativité et la physique quantique sont des exemples de cette nouvelle manière de penser le monde.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSens publicSame topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207