Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est convenu, sinon prouvé, que science et tolérance ne soient guère compatibles. Pareille convention se fonde sur la confusion de la science, toujours relative et précaire en ses savoirs accumulés et certitude dogmatique. Les nouvelles découvertes et la pénétration des Portugais en Chine notamment sont l'occasion de vérifier combien la géographie demeure une science humaine et qu'elle ordonne ses connaissances au partir de celui qui en formalise les acquis sous forme de carte. La présence occidentale en Extrême-Orient est aussi l'occasion de la confrontation de deux systèmes de la connaissance du monde et de son organisation intellectuelle. Au XVI e siècle, la science pré-moderne rencontre les conditions objectives de la tolérance : confrontée qu'elle est à des savoirs autres - étrangers - mais non moins efficaces pour certains ; soutenue, en Europe même, par les théologies protestantes, réalisant l'alliance stratégique d'un discours nouveau sur Dieu et de la science, subalterne en cette tâche d'une représentation nouvelle du créateur et de sa création.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".