Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pierre-Daniel Huet est un des sceptiques les plus importants de la fin du XVIIe siècle et du début du XVIIIe siècle. Dans cet article, je cherche à montrer en six points que la principale source du scepticisme de Huet est paradoxalement Descartes, chaque point étant développé dans une section du texte : 1) Huet a découvert le doute cartésien avant de connaître le doute sceptique des anciens ; 2) le scepticisme du Traité Philosophique de la Faiblesse de l’Esprit Humain et l’anti-cartésianisme de la Censura Philosophiae Cartesianae faisaient originellement partie d’une même ouvrage ; 3) on trouve un Descartes sceptique dans la Censura ; 4) la biographie intellectuelle du Provençal dans le Traité Philosophique actualise et pyrrhonise la biographie intellectuelle du Descartes du Discours de la Méthode ; 5) quatre arguments sceptiques du Traité, dont le plus important de l’ouvrage, sont cartésiens ; 6) le scepticisme de Huet a été perçu par les premiers lecteurs du manuscrit du Traité comme partialement cartésien.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".