LA PHILOSOPHIE MISE À L’ÉPREUVE : le Pascal de Graeme Hunter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pascal est-il un philosophe ? Sa pensée est-elle pertinente pour nous ? Comment faut-il le lire aujourd’hui ? Ces questions n’ont jamais été aussi actuelles, ou plutôt elles n’ont jamais cessé de l’être depuis sa mort en août 1662. Un certain mystère entoure les Pensées, son magnum opus inachevé et décousu, constitué de fragments pour la plupart tout aussi incomplets. Et pourtant, Pascal est radicalement et profondément philosophe. Guidés par l’ouvrage de Graeme Hunter, Pascal the Philosopher : An Introduction, nous croyons qu’il s’agit d’une lecture parfaitement soutenable et pertinente de la pensée de Pascal. La critique pascalienne de la philosophie, loin d’être camouflée dans un premier temps, si elle est examinée en profondeur et dans ses nuances, ouvre, dans un second temps, à la compréhension d’un Pascal qui, nonobstant son hostilité, se révèle en plein exercice d’outils philosophiques.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".