MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076651634 · doi:10.1093/ehr/cem351

Machiavelli's Hybrid Republicanism

2007· article· en· W2076651634 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Jurdjevic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe English Historical Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraiseChampionPoliticsClassicsPhilosophyLiteratureHistoryLawArtPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses contrasts between Machiavelli's early and late republican writings. It argues that Machiavelli does not in the Discori straightforwardly champion the ancient Roman republican example. It examines several paradoxes and tensions within the Discorsi to show that even in the midst of his praise of Rome, Machiavelli had doubts about the viability and logical coherency of the Roman model. It contrasts those doubts with Machiavelli's Florentine writings in the 1520s that establish a republican model based on principles, convictions, and arguments not evident in his reflections on Rome. His later writings—a hybrid republicanism—fuse Greek, Roman, and Florentine republican traditions and modify classical ideas to accommodate the more fluid social and political setting of sixteenth-century Florence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe English Historical ReviewSame topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207