Bibliographic record
Abstract
En considérant les abondants témoignages sur la manière par laquelle Hérodote et Thucydide analysaient les questions de science naturelle et les chiffres, nous jetons une nouvelle lumière sur la question entourant la pensée rationnelle de ces auteurs et la crédibilité que l’on doit leur accorder. Même si Thucydide emploie une rhétorique de la crédibilité, son examen des nombres et des phénomènes s’avère très traditionnel. Hérodote, en revanche, expose souvent l’état de la question des débats contemporains sur la philosophie de la nature. Il lui arrive d’accepter certains points de vue et de s’engager personnellement dans les débats. Hérodote désire que son lectorat s’instruise en même temps que lui, tandis que Thucydide veut que son lecteur se fie entièrement aux résultats qu’il a obtenus et présentés. Les exposés d’Hérodote ne sont pas moins rationnels que ceux de Thucydide. Il arrive même qu’ils le soient davantage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".