O Segredo de Estado em Portugal: da opacidade do Estado Novo à primazia da transparência contemporânea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the regime of State secrets in Portugal, emphasizing the imperative need for greater transparency and its alignment with the democratic principles of accountability and civic participation.From a historical perspective, the study traces the evolution of the concept of State secrets from the Estado Novo period to the post-April 25th democratic consolidation, highlighting how political and social transformations influenced legislation and governmental practices related to the classification and management of sensitive information.The research pays particular attention to the modifications introduced by Law No. 2/2014, of August 6, highlighting the challenges that persist in reconciling national security with the rights to information and administrative transparency.Through a critical analysis of current legislation and its practical application, the article debates the adequacy of the current State secret regime to the demands of a society that increasingly values transparency and public scrutiny of governmental activities.It proposes a reflection on the inherent tensions between the protection of classified information and the growing demand for open and accountable governance.The study concludes by underlining the need for legislative reforms and administrative practices that promote an effective balance between State security and the strengthening of democratic pillars of transparency and citizen participation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".