Bibliographic record
Abstract
No political philosopher is better known in the business world than Niccolo Machiavelli. His fame resting on The Prince, the Renaissance Italian writer has often been featured in the popular business press, mostly to show the relevance of his realpolitik world-view to the sorts of issues that a contemporary manager is apt to face. However, the popular view of Machiavelli as a hard-headed thinker has been challenged by scholars pointing to his advocacy of republics in the Discourses on Livy, his other great work. Interpreted along these lines, Machiavelli can be invoked to support participatory structures in business along with the cultivation of publicly spirited virtues. We argue that the common perceptions of Machiavelli are actually on a better track. His analysis of republics uncovers weaknesses germane to business that render The Prince more suitable to commercial life. As such, Machiavelli’s overriding point is that in a competitive arena, such as that of modern-day business, individuals holding leadership positions, or aspiring to them, must be prepared to go beyond conventional morality and live by a different and, indeed, icy set of rules. Being good in business, Machiavelli warns, will only lead to personal ruin. Machiavelli goes further than this, calling for a trans-valuation of values, wherein the praiseworthy quality of leaders are redefined so as to take into account the competitive realities of business. In this new ethic, virtue is connected to acquisitiveness, moral flexibility, image management, and reaches its culmination in the entrepreneurial task of founding a great company.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".