The Use and Misuse of Information in Securitate’s Files: The Case of Plamadeala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This short article discusses a series of Securitate documents which contain various inconsistencies, and which were written on or about the Romanian theologian Antonie Plamadeala. Examining these files, I attempt to reconstruct the case Securitate built against Plamadeala in the late 1940s, and point to errors and forgeries, which they may contain. Stated differently, I look at evidence, which may have been fabricated by Securitate in order to prove Plamadeala’s alleged ties to the Legionary Movement. I do this by first laying out the series of accusations the Romanian secret police brought against Plamadeala in 1949 and the way in which it constructed its evidence to support its case against him. I then offer a succinct analysis of ways in which one may derive truth from the plethora of information such files may bring to the attention of the modern investigator, truth which, as this article shows, is often juxtaposed with untruth in Securitate archival records.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".