Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article entend illustrer, par le cas des deux principaux textes du Haut Moyen Âge relatifs au problème des universaux — l’ In « Isagogen » Porphyrii Commentorum Editio secunda de Boèce et la Logica « Ingredientibus » : Super Porphyrium d’Abélard (selon l’ordre chronologique) —, le défi de longue haleine que peut représenter pour un historien de la philosophie médiévale l’atteinte, pourtant essentielle tant pour la recherche que pour l’enseignement, d’une compréhension adéquate d’un pareil corpus. Méthodologiquement, en conclusion, le lien, réciproque et dynamique, est souligné entre l’effort de compréhension des textes via leur lecture, en premier lieu, et les autres étapes du travail de l’historien de la philosophie que sont l’édition critique, la traduction et l’étude historico-doctrinale. Le but étant la meilleure intelligence possible des textes du passé sur un mode toujours présentiel.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".