Les miracles au péril de la science1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de ce texte est de tenter de comprendre la persistance du phénomène de la croyance aux miracles dans un monde dominé par la science et la technologie. Le texte comprend cinq parties. Au cours de la première partie, nous présentons quelques sondages concernant la croyance aux miracles ainsi qu’une définition des miracles. Puisque la prière est au coeur du processus miraculeux, l’analyse de son efficacité fait l’objet de la deuxième partie. Nous examinons par la suite le fonctionnement du processus miraculeux en s’inspirant de ce qui se passe à Lourdes. Dans la quatrième partie, nous nous interrogeons sur la possibilité de concilier science et religion. La dernière partie comprend trois sections : quatre critiques méthodologiques concernant l’efficacité de la prière, l’importance des notions de hasard et de probabilités nécessaires à la compréhension de la notion de miracle et la présentation de six hypothèses alternatives de nature médicale aux explications des miracles reconnus par l’Église.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".