MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1636725626

The GST Cut is not so Stupid

2008· preprint· en· W1636725626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Grady

Bibliographic record

VenueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Tax incidenceEconomicsMonetary economicsKeynesian economicsPublic economicsPolitical scienceIndirect taxTax reformPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that the two-percentage point cut in the GST to 5 per cent proposed by the Conservatives in the January 2006 Canadian federal election and implemented in the 2007 budget was not “stupid” as suggested by many economists. To the contrary, it fortuitously turned out to provide needed fiscal stimulus of a particularly potent type just as the economy turned down. It also had a progressive impact on the incidence of the tax system. And finally the lower rate would make it easier to harmonize the GST with provincial sales tax.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)Same topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207