Bibliographic record
Abstract
« Qu’est-ce que la vérité ? », demande le philosophe. « Qu’est-ce que la vérité pour les philosophes ? », demande le philosophe de l’histoire de la philosophie qui entreprend de traverser les textes des philosophes pour leur poser une unique question : « qu’avez-vous fait de la notion de vérité » ?Pour répondre à ces interrogations, le livre fait la philosophie de l’histoire la plus récente de la philosophie. Il est ainsi la première étape d’une vaste enquête qui interrogera le passé de l’histoire de la philosophie et qui remontera à la question initiale : fallait-il et faut-il encore en philosophie « faire une fixation sur la vérité ? » selon les termes d’un défi lancé aux philosophes par François Jullien à partir d’un lieu théorique autre que la philosophie occidentale, celui de la sagesse chinoise.Afin de relever ce défi, le livre entend renouveler la notion de philosophie de l’histoire de la philosophie, nom d’une entreprise lancée par Martial Gueroult à la fin de sa carrière. Il propose une nouvelle manière de la pratiquer.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".