MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1587377475

La charge fiscale nette des particuliers au Québec et dans les pays du G7 : le Québec est en excellente position et maintes fois champion des réductions fiscales!

2008· preprint· fr· W1587377475 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Luc Godbout, Suzie St‐Cerny

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2008
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans « La charge fiscale nette des particuliers au Québec et dans les pays du G7 : le Québec est en excellente position et maintes fois champion des réductions fiscales! », les auteurs Luc Godbout et Suzie St-Cerny utilisent la méthodologie développée par l'OCDE dans son étude intitulée « Les impôts sur les salaires », et calculent la charge fiscale nette des particuliers québécois pour différents niveaux de revenus et selon différentes situations familiales pour 2000 et 2006 puis comparent les résultats à ceux des pays du G7. Pour le calcul de la charge fiscale nette, les impôts sur le revenu payés par les contribuables sont considérés, mais également les cotisations sociales versées ainsi que les différentes prestations reçues, ce qui permet une analyse plus complète. Les résultats obtenus montrent notamment que le Québec se compare avantageusement avec la moyenne des pays du G7 et qu'il est maintes fois le champion, parmi les pays du G7, en ce qui a trait à l'importance des réductions fiscales entre 2000 et 2006.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)→Same topicSocial Sciences and Governance→French-language works237,207→