Pourquoi la démonstration fait-elle progresser la connaissance ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude tente de montrer que la démonstration est conçue par les commentateurs médiévaux comme un instrument permettant de faire progresser la connaissance du monde. Même si la théorie de la démonstration n’est pas une « logique de la découverte », elle aurait pour but spécifique de décrire les caractéristiques que devrait avoir un discours apte à manifester l’articulation causale de choses appartenant à un même genre. À partir de l’analyse de quelques textes de Thomas d’Aquin sur la distinction entre la connaissance propter quid et la connaissance quia, on montrera que ladite articulation représente la nouveauté même qui est censée être acquise par un syllogisme démonstratif. Cette conclusion sera confirmée par l’étude de quelques textes de la Logica d’al-Ghazālī qui semblent révéler des présupposés présents dans certains écrits des commentateurs latins comme Thomas d’Aquin.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".