Relativité, determinatio et parallaxe, remarques sur le traitement cartésien de trois controverses scientifiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trois sujets de philosophie naturelle, fort controversés à l’époque où Descartes élabore sa physique (incluant son système du Monde) sont particulièrement présents dans les Principes de la philosophie de Descartes, le principe de relativité des mouvements des corps matériels, la nature que l’on nommera plus tard vectorielle de la grandeur, qui caractérise l’état de mouvement d’un corps et que Descartes contribue à constituer par la notion de determinatio et l’objection parallactique contre l’héliocentrisme. On examine ici comment l’actualité du débat scientifique permet de comprendre l’argumentation cartésienne et on insiste sur le caractère polémique de ce traité. On peut notamment relever que les théories galiléennes pèsent d’un grand poids dans la modification des conceptions cartésiennes du mouvement et que les arguments, alors les plus récents, avancés en astronomie soutiennent la mise au point du système du monde cartésien. Il s’agit de mettre l’histoire des sciences au service d’une meilleure intelligence de la somme philosophique cartésienne.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".