MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2828666699 · doi:10.1177/0265691418779693

Military Archives of Renaissance Florence: Resolutions and Bookkeeping of the Dieci di Balìa and the Otto di Pratica

2018· article· en· W2828666699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fabrizio Ansani

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean History Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe RenaissanceFifteenthHistoriographyBookkeepingThe RepublicDocumentary evidenceOrder (exchange)Quarter (Canadian coin)ClassicsHistoryLawManagementPolitical scienceArt historyPhilosophyArchaeologyBusinessTheologyAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to contemporary historiography, the military offices of Renaissance Florence were backward and disorganized, unaware of the current Italian innovations, and suspicious of their own soldiers. This literature, however, seems to be based more on the Machiavellian prejudice against mercenary companies, than on thorough and systematic archival research. The aim of this article, hence, is an examination of the whole documentary production of the two military institutions of the Florentine Republic, the Dieci di Balìa and the Otto di Pratica, in order to try to re-evaluate the management of war, the relationships between rulers and captains, and the processes of enlistment, equipment, and inspection. The accounts, the resolutions, the daily registrations of treasurers, secretaries, and commissioners, then, illustrate the practices and the organization of both of these magistracies during the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The results of this study demonstrate that, long before the admission of Niccolò Machiavelli to its chancery, the Republic had the men, the knowledge, and the money for operating warfare efficiently and effectively.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean History QuarterlySame topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207