MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4287446945 · doi:10.1093/obo/9780195399301-0490

Medici Bank

2022· reference-entry· en· W4287446945 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueRenaissance and Reformation · 2022
Typereference-entry
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésElitePoliticsContext (archaeology)FifteenthPower (physics)ShareholderEconomic historyBusiness historyPolitical scienceBusinessEconomyHistoryEconomicsFinanceAncient historyLawCorporate governance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The history of the Medici Bank and the family’s history are essentially entangled. The rise of the Medici family was mainly due to the rise of their bank, which produced fundamental wealth. The economic riches were the basis of the social ascendency and the growing exercise of political influence in the Florentine Republic’s context. Like most Florentine patricians and members of the elite, the Medici ran some business at a high level. The enrolment in one of the major guilds gave access to political power in Florence. The most important Medici banking enterprise was the Bank of Rome, which was founded in 1397 by Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici as the main shareholder and head of the company. From that moment onward, the Medici Bank made its way to substantial expansion. A significant step forward was becoming the Depositor of the Apostolic Chamber, the pope’s banking manager, in 1420—an office held for twenty-two years. Then, the banking business of Cosimo de’ Medici the Elder (Giovanni di Bicci’s son) held this important post for almost forty years (1443–1473). During the later fifteenth century, the Medici Bank had to face a much more complex situation with many other potent players. Since it got deeply involved in government finance, the banking business was in charge of high loans to various crowns and had to bear the risk of default. Until the liquidation of the Medici business partnerships in 1494, the bank still was the backbone of the political power of the Medici regime, which dominated the Florentine Republic down to the second Medici exile in that year. In fact, the Medici Bank consisted of a continuous and complex structure of companies whose individual contracts were renewed after a period of about three years. In economic history, the Medici Bank was described as a holding of quite modern appearance. Because of the interlocking directorship of capital investors and main shareholders, Richard A. Goldthwaite calls this Florentine type of organization a “business partnership agglomerate.” With regard to its key function for the ascendency of the Medici family to the core group of the governing regime in the fifteenth century—in the first half of the sixteenth century, two members of the Medici family were elected popes, and in 1537 Cosimo the Younger came to power as the first Duke of Tuscany—the bank became almost legendary. The Medici archives were shaped by various secretaries of the family and by the executors (sequestrators) of 1494; hence many of the traces of the business affairs were intentionally destroyed later, because they served other purposes or they could compromise the family’s dynastic ambitions. The Medici businesses covered commerce, banking, and government finance, like other Florentine firms did. The office of the administration of the Apostolic Chamber as the Pope’s depository was a highly desired objective of all potent banks in the late medieval period and the Renaissance. Especially, Cosimo the Elder tended to employ very aggressive strategies to eliminate rivals. His grandson, Lorenzo the Magnificent, succeeded in transferring the Medici Bank’s assets to Rome and Lyon, conveying them into other companies. When the bank was liquidated in 1494, the executors only found very little financial resources in Florence to be sequestrated. The de facto successors belonged to a group of former managers of the Medici Bank. So the Medici Bank’s interlocking ownership and capital were dispersed to the de’ Rossi, the Pandolfini and Buonvisi, the Lanfredini, the Bracci and Bartolini businesses.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,607
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,560

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0100,005
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,6070,523

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,247
Écart entre enseignants0,204 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRenaissance and ReformationMême sujetRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesTravaux en français237 207