MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907604273 · doi:10.1017/s0012217318000343

Condillac et la critique d’un système. Le cas leibnizien

2018· article· fr· W2907604273 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le Traité des systèmes , Condillac analyse une pluralité de métaphysiques systématiques dont celles de Spinoza, de Malebranche et de Leibniz. Les commentateurs ont principalement interprété cette diversité comme une manière pour Condillac d’illustrer son propos et de remettre en question les principaux systèmes de son époque depuis une même grille interprétative. Les moyens de son analyse diffèrent toutefois selon les pensées concernées. Cet article vise à commenter la critique du système de Leibniz afin de montrer que Condillac opère depuis des reconstructions ultérieures. Pour faire l’examen du système leibnizien, il fallait lui donner une structure architectonique qu’il trouve en bonne partie chez Wolff.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogueSame topicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207