MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188321781 · doi:10.28998/rchv12n23.2021.0018

“Renovar na continuidade”. A procura de uma administração para o desenvolvimento num país a duas velocidades (1950-1965)

2021· article· pt· W3188321781 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ana Carina Azevedo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Crítica Histórica · 2021
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaFederation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Em 1967 foi criado em Portugal o Secretariado da Reforma Administrativa, iniciando um projeto global de reforma da Administração Pública. Porém, as bases da sua criação e do projeto de reforma apresentado começam a desenvolver-se desde o início da década de 1950, profundamente enredados e dependentes da conjuntura nacional e internacional da época. Este artigo analisa o longo percurso de procura de uma Administração Pública virada para o desenvolvimento económico que tem lugar nos quinze anos anteriores à constituição do Grupo de Trabalho n.º 14, que viria a potenciar a criação do Secretariado da Reforma Administrativa. Baseando-se em documentação de arquivo, publicações coevas, debates parlamentares e na legislação promulgada, o artigo pretende demonstrar que este processo decorre quer dos novos desafios do pós-guerra, quer das tensões internas do Estado Novo. Tensões que oscilam entre o voluntarismo dos desenvolvimentistas que viam no fomento económico uma condição para a sobrevivência do regime e o receio face aos pressupostos de um crescimento económico que pudesse escapar ao que era desejável.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.018
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Crítica HistóricaSame topicPolitical and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207