Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article est consacré à un réexamen du Traité sur la probabilité de Keynes. Il souligne d’abord les origines chez Leibniz de la démarche intellectuelle adoptée par Keynes. Il s’attache ensuite à dégager la nature véritable du projet qui sous-tend sa rédaction : rechercher le fondement logique de la probabilité caractérisée comme le degré de croyance rationnelle en la vérité d’une proposition. Il montre alors comment ce projet initial a été desservi par sa formulation dans les termes inadaptés de la logique propositionnelle de Russell. En assimilant ces degrés de croyances à une relation logique, Keynes s’est exposé aux critiques de Ramsey et le Traité a donné lieu à plusieurs incompréhensions. Cet article suggère enfin que certaines idées exposées dans le Traité, comme la notion de « pertinence », ont anticipé plusieurs concepts qui sont développés aujourd’hui dans les recherches d’inspiration cognitiviste sur les croyances.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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".