Bibliographic record
Abstract
La critique du cartésianisme formulée par Pierre-Daniel Huet à la fin du XVIIe siècle constitue l’un des événements les plus marquants de l’histoire du scepticisme à la période moderne. Cette critique se fonde sur l’arsenal des arguments sceptiques produits durant tout le XVIIe siècle et pave la voie à la position anti-métaphysique des Lumières, qui commence avec Bayle et se poursuit avec les philosophes en passant par Hume. La réponse attendue des cartésiens à l’encontre de Huet est venue de Pierre-Sylvain Régis, auquel Huet va répondre à son tour à plusieurs reprises. Bien que la critique de Huet ait porté sur l’ensemble des thèmes spécifiques au cartésianisme (le doute méthodique, le cogito, la clarté et la distinction des perceptions, etc.), et bien que Régis ait répondu sur tous ces points, il n’en reste pas moins que le débat entre eux s’est essentiellement concentré sur le doute cartésien, que nous examinons minutieusement ici à la lumière de leur confrontation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".