Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unusual in Italy for being a city that has very little evidence of classical origins, scholarly attention for the history of Siena has tended to focus on the late-medieval period, when it was stably governed by a group of elected officials known as the “Nine” (1287–1355). The century leading up to the Black Death (1348) was characterized by the establishment of sophisticated civic institutions, significant demographic growth, the expansion of its territorial base (contado), and the city’s rapid development as a commercial center with a strong banking sector. More recent scholarship has re-evaluated the importance of this independent city state through the Renaissance period, until it was conquered by the Imperial forces of Emperor Charles V (1555), who then ceded the city to Duke Cosimo de’ Medici to form part of the Medici dominions (1557). Until this time, Sienese politics were marked by complex wrangling between rival factions, although the republican system prevailed—with an intermission during the ascendancy of the quasi-prince Pandolfo Petrucci (c. 1503–1512) and his heirs (to 1525)—until its loss of independence. With Medici control imposed by external governors, local institutions lost much of their significance and the city’s cultural and ritual life became rather more isolated and inward-looking. Siena was positioned between the papal state (south) and Florence (north), and the via Francigena trade and pilgrimage axis toward Rome ran through the state, providing an important reason for through traffic of passing dignitaries as well as the major route to markets in northern Europe. A lasting rivalry with neighboring Florence marked Siena’s political, commercial, and cultural life, and at least some scholarship has dwelt on comparison between the two centers. While the larger neighbor has certainly drawn much more research activity, Siena’s banking families (e.g., Spannocchi and Chigi), religious élites (e.g., popes Pius II and Pius III Piccolomini), and holy people (e.g., Sts. Bernardine and Catherine) provide some indication of the degree to which the city deserves further attention, likely to be rewarded from the rich seams of evidence in its well-ordered archives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.229 | 0.127 |
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".