Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le scepticisme des Lumières est le parent pauvre des études que Popkin a consacrées au scepticisme moderne. En général, Popkin ne confère au scepticisme des Lumières qu’une valeur propédeutique ou méthodologique. Si Popkin est revenu à plusieurs reprises sur ce portrait qu’il a brossé du scepticisme des Lumières pour le nuancer, évoquant notamment les travaux de Baker, d’Olaso ou de Tonelli, c’est pour accepter que le scepticisme ait été plus prégnant au XVIII e siècle qu’il ne le pensait, mais sans pour autant modifier son sentiment quant à l’usage qui en fut fait. Or, à partir de l’évocation de formes de scepticisme délaissées par Popkin (le scepticisme clandestin, l’égoïsme), cet article propose une réévaluation de l’ensemble du scepticisme des Lumières et en teste la validité en prenant Rousseau pour exemple. L’avantage du recours à Rousseau, c’est que ce dernier a connu à la fois le scepticisme clandestin et l’égoïsme, et qu’il est donc à même de montrer l’influence de ce scepticisme souterrain sur les Lumières dans leur ensemble.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".