MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128643122 · doi:10.4000/philonsorbonne.1642

Le critère de démarcation de Popper et la thèse de Duhem-Quine

2021· article· fr· W3128643122 on OpenAlexaff
Youri Cabot

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilonsorbonne · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsCegep de La Pocatiere
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesQuineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’intuition fondamentale de Popper est que les théories scientifiques se distinguent de toutes les autres formes de spéculation par le fait qu’elles sont falsifiables. Pourtant, la thèse de Duhem-Quine soutient, sous sa forme la plus radicale, qu’une proposition scientifique peut être maintenue quelles que soient les observations effectuées. Nous proposons ici de passer en revue les différentes manières dont Popper a défendu son critère de falsifiabilité contre la thèse de Duhem-Quine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.028
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilonsorbonneSame topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207