Philippe Mengue, <i>Faire l’idiot. La politique de Deleuze<i/>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BOLDUC En 2003 parat Deleuze et la question de la dmocratie, un ouvrage o Philippe Mengue tente audacieusement de mettre en lumire le foss qui spare, selon lui, la promotion du multiple chez Gilles Deleuze de cette forme d'organisation politique qui prend le parti du pluralisme (Mengue, Dmocratie 16). Immdiatement, un dbat sur cette question s'ensuit. En effet, ds son compte rendu critique Deleuze and Democracy paru en 2005, Paul Patton se penche sur ce qui constitue, de son point de vue, les trois principaux arguments de Mengue, dans le but de les dmonter et de rvler la lecture partiale et tronque de l'oeuvre de Deleuze qu'ils prsupposent : loin de condamner la dmocratie en tant que telle, ses remises en question permanentes des universaux (les droits de l'homme), de la majorit (la reprsentativit) et de l' opinion (le consensus reposant sur ce qui semble raisonnable un moment donn) visent au contraire, d'aprs Patton, l'tat prsent de la dmocratie dans diffrentes socits, et ces critiques reposent en dernire instance chez Deleuze sur un certain concept de la dmocratie qui demeure valide malgr les errements dnoncs dans ces diffrentes manifestations (Patton 411 sq.). Dix ans plus tard, dans Faire l'idiot, Mengue donne en partie raison Patton en qualifiant d' ambigus ou peu nuancs (Mengue, Faire l'idiot 93) certains propos de son premier livre
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it