Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article compare philosophiquement la théorie mathématique de la décision individuelle, d’une part, et la conception psychologique ordinaire de l’action, du désir et de la croyance, d’autre part. Il délimite plus strictement son objet en étudiant, sous cet angle comparatif, le système de Savage et son concept technique de probabilité subjective, rapporté, comme celui de Ramsey, au modèle élémentaire du pari. L’examen est scandé par trois thèses philosophiques ⁚ (i) la théorie de la décision n’est que la psychologie commune mise en langage formel (Lewis), (ii) la première améliore substantiellement la seconde, mais ne s’affranchit pas des limites caractéristiques de celle-ci, en particulier de son inaptitude à séparer empiriquement le désir et la croyance (Davidson), (iii) la première améliore substantiellement la seconde, et par les innovations qu’elle comporte, s’affranchit de certaines de ses limitations. On s’est donné pour but d’établir la thèse (iii) à la fois contre la thèse trop simple (i) et contre la thèse subtile (ii).
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".