Bibliographic record
Abstract
As he suggests in a justly famous letter written to a friend in 1513, Niccolò Machiavelli (b. 1469–d. 1527) lived most fully when he communed in thought with the great ancient writers on the greatest deeds of Antiquity—and in succeeding centuries he continued to live on in the thoughts and through the writings of such great thinkers as Spinoza and Tocqueville; Marlowe and Shakespeare, Fichte and Nietzsche, not to mention indirectly in the deeds of Cromwell, Robespierre, Mazzini, and Lenin. Machiavelli comes to us wrapped in this diverse and contested tradition but also and more immediately in the garb of contemporary scholarship, where diversity and contestation abound, as well. One thing all scholarly parties can agree on is that the Florentine was vastly important—be it as a preeminent expression of the cyclonic intellectual activity of a time we now call the Renaissance, as the restorer of classical republican ideals, the founder of the modern world, the apostle of power politics, or the father of modern revolutionary thought. Born at a time of relative stability for Italy due in no small part to the successful machinations of Florence’s Medici rulers, Machiavelli’s young adulthood saw the stability vanish with the invasion of Italy by the French and the expulsion from Florence of the Medici. By 1498 he found himself serving the republican government of Florence that, in 1512, was itself brought down, leading to Machiavelli’s political banishment and to the writing of the works that would cause him to be counted among the greatest figures of the Renaissance and of the intellectual history of the Western world.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.021 |
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".