MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074643280 · doi:10.7202/018246ar

Au fil conducteur du scepticisme : science et métaphysique chez Glanvill

2008· article· fr· W2074643280 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frédéric Brahami

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Membre de la Royal Society , Joseph Glanvill a écrit une oeuvre complexe où le scepticisme le plus radical va de pair avec la plus grande confiance dans les progrès du savoir. Ce paradoxe apparent exprime une nouvelle conception de la science, résolument déprise de toute prétention à la saisie intuitive de la nature des choses. Le scepticisme devient alors non seulement la condition des progrès scientifiques, mais la méthode même de la science. Dans cette mesure, Glanvill tient une place importante, quoique discrète, dans l’histoire moderne de la philosophie critique. La distinction qu’il opère, pour répondre à l’argument cartésien du Dieu trompeur, entre la « certitude infaillible » et la « certitude indubitable », marque en effet le moment où la science, consciente de ses règles, se sait elle-même relative.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.145 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207