Machiavel et la vertu intellectuelle de prudence : étude du chapitre XXV du Prince*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.L'objectif de cet article est de souligner les limites de l'idée, fort répandue parmi les commentateurs de Machiavel, selon laquelle c'est dans la domination de la « fortuna » que la nature véritable de la « virtù » se révélerait. À partir d'une analyse approfondie du chapitre XXV duPrince, nous nous efforçons de montrer que la « virtù » est indissociable d'un monde que les individus ne peuvent s'empêcher de rendre instable et incertain. Notre hypothèse est que la prudence machiavélienne est caractérisée par une tension irréductible entre l'effort visant à contenir les effets délétères de l'imprévisibilité des « cose del mondo » et la reconnaissance des limites fondamentales des pouvoirs individuels et collectifs sollicités à cette fin. Abstract.This article aims to show the limits of the idea, prevalent among Machiavellian scholars, that “virtù” reveals its true nature in the domination of “fortuna.” Through an in-depth analysis of chapter XXV ofThe Prince, we try to demonstrate that “virtù” is inseparable from a world that individuals render unstable and uncertain in spite of themselves. Our hypothesis is that Machiavellian prudence is characterized by an irreducible tension between the efforts undertaken to constrain the harmful effects of the unpredictable “cose del mondo” and the recognition of the constitutive limits of individual and collective powers employed to this end.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".