MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406764960 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18020051

Exploration of Audit Technologies in Public Security Agencies: Empirical Research from Portugal

2025· article· en· W4406764960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diogo Leocádio, Luís Malheiro, Jo�ão Reis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditBusinessPublic securityEmpirical researchAccountingPolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector is driving significant advancements in governance and management, changing the way public organizations operate. In particular, AI technologies have a profound impact on auditing practices, enhancing efficiency and accountability. This article aims to explore how AI can improve audit processes in a Portuguese public security agency, focusing on its transformative potential in streamlining tasks such as data extraction, analysis, and verification. Using a qualitative research approach, the study employs custom Python algorithms to examine the integration of key indicators into the audit process, specifically through the analysis of economic classification and expenditure limits. The findings demonstrate that personalized algorithms can reduce manual workloads, improve accuracy, and strengthen compliance with financial regulations, providing valuable contributions for decision-making. However, challenges such as data privacy and infrastructure investment remain, emphasizing the need for further research. Future studies should focus on adapting AI-based auditing models to various public administration contexts, addressing organizational changes, and advancing public governance.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207