Renaissance Monti di Pietà in Modern Scholarship: Themes, Studies, and Historiographic Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il existe une longue tradition d’études des Monti di Pietà, qui est presqu’entièrement publiée en italien. Cet article propose une revue historiographique de ces recherches, en se basant sur quatre thèmes centraux les ayant orientées. Le premier de ces thèmes correspond aux relations entre les banques et les premiers Monti, et à la question de savoir s’ils étaient de véritables banques ou des institutions charitables. Le deuxième thème correspond au contexte de ces pratiques formé par les débats théologiques et les opinions juridiques de la fin du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance. Le troisième thème est centré sur l’influence des prédicateurs franciscains, incluant comment leurs discours antisémites ont été contrebalancés par les préoccupations économiques locales, pour former un compromis pratique. Le quatrième thème correspond au rôle et à la fonction qu’ont joués les Monti dans le Royaume de Naples. En conclusion, cette revue examine les recherches sur les Monti publiées en anglais depuis les années 1930.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".