6. Les conditions de la rationalité technique des ingénieurs au temps de Vauban
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours du XVIIe siècle, se développent et se codifient des méthodes de rationalisation des projets d’ingénieurs. Parmi les conditions qui rendent possible cet effort de rationalisation on en retient trois : 1° la production d’une littérature technique qui assure un nouveau mode de transmission des connaissances désormais requises et alimente des élaborations successives, 2° l’essor de la science des mécaniques et de la physique mécaniste qui fondent les calculs des ingénieurs et rendent possible la formalisation méthodique des projets. Au temps de Vauban, l’ancrage institutionnel d’une idéologie scientifique appuie et renforce ces applications, 3° la procédure du prix-fait avec enchères publiques qui réglemente au plus juste les intérêts du roi, les exigences techniques du devis de l’ingénieur et les avantages économiques escomptés par des entrepreneurs susceptibles d’assumer les risques financiers et techniques de l’entreprise des travaux.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".