Florentine Society during the Reign of the First Three Medici: Republic or Principate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the processes of reforming the electoral system of the republic during the reign of Cosimo (1434—1464), Piero (1464—1469) and Lorenzo de' Medici (1469—1492), as well as the reactions of citizens to the changes taking place in society. The Medici, without abolishing communal democracy as a whole, used only partial changes to traditional electoral procedures, not always resorting to “hand–held elections”, when commission members took out parchment ballots with the right names from open bags — this practice has been tested since the 1380s, but the Medici knew that it was negatively perceived by the majority of citizens. Already under Cosimo, another option for controlling election to positions at an earlier stage began to be applied — the compilation of lists of candidates from each quarter by members of election commissions: the total number of candidates in them did not decrease, but the range of surnames to which they belonged was significantly reduced, which allowed the Medici to include several people from families which were close to them to the lists. The policy of the first three Medici was flexible. Along with punitive measures, most often expulsions, there could be generous help and benefits for their remaining relatives. The same is evidenced by the attempted conspiracy of the Pazzi in 1478, when the people supported the Medici, but not the conspirators.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".