MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1892038490 · doi:10.7202/009674ar

Épistémologie et probabilité chez Keynes

2004· article· fr· W1892038490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elke Muchlinski

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une analyse épistémologique de la théorie des probabilités de Keynes. Il concerne plus particulièrement le lien entre la conception keynésienne des probabilités et la théorie économique élaborée par Keynes. Nous montrerons que Keynes s’oppose à l’esthétisme formel, aux lois rigides et à la théorie orthodoxe en raison de sa prétendue universalité spatio-temporelle. Nous verrons que Keynes substitue aux catégories traditionnelles, entre autres celles de rigueur et de connaissance complète, de nouvelles catégories comme celles d’incertitude, d’ignorance et d’anticipation. Étant donné que Keynes rejette d’entrée de jeu les calculs du type ce ceux que l’on retrouve dans les approches inspirées de Bentham, nous ferons voir que sa théorie économique prend en compte la fragilité et la précarité de la connaissance. Nous insisterons enfin pour dire que Keynes nous paraît également dépasser le constructivisme, car il rejette ouvertement le recours aux concepts vides, à savoir ceux qui ne sont pour lui qu’un squelette sans chair. Enfin, nous mettrons en évidence que, poussé par le besoin de se fonder sur des principes validesa priori, Keynes abandonne l’empirisme classique à son sort.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.020
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Actualité économiqueSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207