Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le principe d’induction est lié à la définition des nombres entiers d’une façon à la fois essentielle et sujette à controverse. Fonde-t-il ces nombres, ou bien trouve-t-il en eux son fondement ? Son statut lui-même peut être conçu de diverses manières. Est-il donné par l’expérience, par l’intuition, par la logique, par convention ? Ces questions furent l’objet d’une âpre discussion, autour des années 1905-1906, dans le cadre plus large d’un débat sur les fondements des mathématiques qui opposa Poincaré aux logicistes (en particulier Russell et Couturat) et aux « axiomatistes » (en particulier Peano et Hilbert). Nous proposons dans cet article de faire le point sur les termes et les enjeux de cette discussion. Nous montrerons en outre qu’elle fut l’occasion d’une redéfinition de l’analytique et, par suite, des frontières de la logique.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".