Bibliographic record
Abstract
Florence has long been considered the epicenter of the Italian Renaissance because of the early and conspicuous development there of humanism and the city’s stunning innovations in the visual arts. Yet this landlocked city was also a major European economic center renowned for its thriving textile industries, extensive banking networks, and creative mechanisms of public finance. In contrast to the celebrated political stability of the Venetian republic, Florence was haunted by frequent political upheavals and deep social tensions that ultimately led to the collapse of the guild republic and the advent of the Medici principate in the early 16th century. Home to illustrious political figures such as Lorenzo de’ Medici, as well as thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Florence was at base a city of merchants and artisans throughout the republican period. It was their exceptional propensity for record keeping, as much as the city’s vaunted cultural achievements, that give Renaissance Florence its enduring reputation. Florentines began chronicling their own history in the 14th century, giving rise to a long and complex historiographical tradition. This article focuses on the major areas of scholarly inquiry that have emerged since the 1950s.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.581 | 0.205 |
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".