Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Le concept de loi naturelle joue un rôle essentiel dans l’émergence de l’économie politique comme discipline autonome aux dix-septième et dix-huitième siècles. Fascinés par la physique newtonienne, les fondateurs de la nouvelle science conçoivent l’économie comme un mécanisme naturel régi par des lois universelles, valables en tout temps et en tout lieu, dans lequel les pouvoirs publics ne doivent pas intervenir. C’est avec François Quesnay et la physiocratie que cette vision atteint sa formulation la plus développée et dogmatique. À la même époque s’affirme une vision alternative, qu’on peut qualifier de relativiste, selon laquelle les lois économiques, si elles existent, varient selon les époques, les pays, les institutions auxquelles elles s’appliquent. Les critiques des physiocrates sont ainsi les précurseurs de divers courants hétérodoxes s’opposant à la vision universaliste toujours dominante dans la discipline. Notre texte fait l’histoire de la première phase de ce débat.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".