MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143415856 · doi:10.7202/007731ar

La dispute de Bolzano avec Kant

2004· article· fr· W2143415856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Šebestík

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Science, and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyIntuitionHumanitiesEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce dialogue confronte deux conceptions qui dominent jusqu’à nos jours la philosophie des mathématiques : d’un côté la conception kantienne qui souligne l’irréductible apport de l’intuition dans la formulation des axiomes, ainsi que l’effectivité des procédés de construction ; de l’autre côté la conception bolzanienne qui s’efforce d’éliminer toute intervention de l’intuition au profit des démonstrations et des procédés purement conceptuels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.025
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.187 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicPhilosophy, Science, and HistoryFrench-language works237,207