The Role of the Media and Civil Society in Intelligence Accountability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the accountability of intelligence agencies in Spain and Brazil. Drawing from critical intelligence studies, this article will argue that the goal of accountability is to expand legitimacy by incorporating the civil society. This requires redeveloping the scope of intelligence and its audience beyond legal norms and traditional decision-makers. To do so, the article will consider the following actors: 1) the media; 2) whistleblowers and leaks; 3) scholars; and 4) fiction writers. These actors may complement intelligence by gathering information or acting as knowledge advisory groups. Moreover, they can also challenge intelligence by promoting deeper scrutiny and transparency, while constructing archetypes that represent secret agencies. The conclusion will summarize the strengths and limitations deriving from these actors to promote accountability. It will also claim that, through a critical approach, exploring new accountability forms are necessary to expand the social legitimacy of intelligence policies. Received: 2022-10-07Revised: 2022-01-05
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".