MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1786270605 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511626883.002

DESIGNING FISCAL CONSTITUTIONS

2009· book-chapter· en· W1786270605 on OpenAlexaff
Robin W. Boadway, Anwar Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part I is concerned with division of fiscal powers in federal systems. Seven chapters are devoted to various aspects of assignment of spending, taxing, and regulatory powers among various orders of government. Chapter 1 introduces basic concepts of federalism. It distinguishes between unitary and federal forms of constitutions and presents a stylized view of alternate models of federalism in theory and practice. It identifies the sources of inefficiency and inequity in a market economy and outlines the rational for public intervention. It argues that ultimately the assignment of powers in a federation and the optimal policies undertaken by each level of government depend on the same efficiency and equity considerations that determine the rationale for government intervention in the first place. Because federal economies consist of various autonomous jurisdictions, however, there are additional efficiency and equity considerations, some of which arise because decentralization has different effects on the fiscal capacities of different subnational jurisdictions, giving rise to fiscal inefficiencies and fiscal inequities. Others arise because of horizontal fiscal externalities, as the independent policies of governments at a given level have effects on residents or governments of neighboring jurisdictions. Still others arise when policies undertaken at a given level of government affect governments at another level, creating what are known as vertical fiscal externalities. The existence of these various effects will influence the case for decentralization, as they represent costs of decentralization that must be set against the many benefits.

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)0.011
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.005

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLocal Government Finance and DecentralizationFrench-language works237,207