MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

As reflexões sobre a reforma administrativa ultramarina em Portugal (1950-1967)

2023· article· pt· W4367186872 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de História · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Nova de LisboaUniversidade de CoimbraFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorFederation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo examina as reflexões sobre as possibilidades de aplicação no Ultramar dos princípios de reforma da Administração Pública estudados na Metrópole. A análise se inicia na década de 1950, abordando as lógicas de planificação económica e termina em 1967, ano em que é criado o Secretariado da Reforma Administrativa, o primeiro órgão central coordenador da reforma. Tratando-se de um estudo inovador de uma temática ainda pouco abordada pela historiografia, a investigação recorreu a uma vasta lista de fontes arquivísticas. Estas são oriundas, sobretudo, dos Ministérios das Finanças e Ambiente, que guardam, respetivamente, a documentação produzida pelos órgãos de estudo da reforma administrativa e o arquivo do planeamento económico. Recorre, também, a uma variedade de fontes impressas publicadas pelos organismos em análise.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.318 · 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