MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981540370 · doi:10.3138/cpp.33.3.337

The Reform of Equalization Payments

2007· article· en· W1981540370 on OpenAlex
Dan Usher

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntitlement (fair division)Transfer paymentPaymentRevenuePublic economicsEqualization (audio)Government (linguistics)EconomicsIncome taxBusinessFinanceWelfareMarket economyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reasonable and fair interpretation of the mandate for equalization payments in Section 36(2) of the Canadian Constitution would differ from the present equalization formula in these respects: (a) transfers to the poorer provinces would be financed by transfers from the richer provinces rather than from the federal government; (b) entitlement to equalization payments would depend on provincial income rather than on a tax-by-tax comparison of the provinces' many tax bases; (c) for this comparison, provincial income would include revenue accruing directly to the provincial governments as well as the private income of residents of the province; and (d) compensation would be made for the exemption of provincial resource revenue from federal income tax. The most pronounced effect of these proposals would be to transfer the greater burden of equalization payments from Ontario to Alberta which is now, by far, the richest province.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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