La critique de la physique aristotélicienne dans les Dialogues de La Mothe Le Vayer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In La Mothe Le Vayer’s Dialogues Made in Imitation of the Ancients, Nature, studied from various aspects, appears in particular as the object of physics. However, if the Dialogues claim to reject skeptically all physics, in fact Aristotle is particularly concerned. Specifically, three approaches converge in a questioning of Aristotelian scholasticism. The first is to use Aristotle’s physics against metaphysics and theology. The second is to question this very Aristotelian physics by attacking its principles. The third is to put forward the critique of the Aristotelian cosmos led by Copernicanism. While most authors quoted by La Mothe Le Vayer are chosen among the philosophers of the Antiquity, the text is still enrolled in the movement of questioning of Aristotelianism in the first seventeenth century, and part of the conditions for the development of a "new science". The fact remains that for La Mothe Le Vayer, the implications of the examination of physics exceed a strictly scientific framework.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".