MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994419374 · doi:10.2307/3552594

A Framework for Evaluating Provincial R&D Tax Subsidies

2005· article· en· W1994419374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bev Dahlby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyBusinessPublic economicsEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spillover effects from a firm's research and development (R&D) activities provide a rationale for R&D tax incentives. This paper provides a framework for incorporating the external rate of return on R&D, the tax sensitivity of R&D spending, and the government's marginal cost of public funds in the evaluation of provincial R&D incentive programs. Using this framework, we find that an additional dollar of tax incentive has to generate close to $2.00 of additional R&D and the external rate of return has to be very close to 30 percent in order to justify a provincial tax subsidy for R&D if the provincial government's marginal cost of funds is $1.40.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainIncentives
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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207