MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996655514 · doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00297

Taxing choices: issues in the assignment of taxes in federations

2001· article· en· W1996655514 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Social Science Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic economicsAccountabilityGovernment (linguistics)EconomicsState (computer science)Tax reformPosition (finance)Tax policyLaw and economicsBusinessPolitical scienceLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the tax assignment question ‐ what level of government should levy taxes and what tax bases should they use? The general principles and specific recommendations of the ‘consensus’ position on tax assignment are reviewed. Some of the problems with the consensus view are discussed, including its top‐down benevolent government perspective, its lack of emphasis on accountability, and its failure to acknowledge the problems that are created by the joint occupancy of tax fields. Data are presented indicating that there is wide variation in the levels of taxation and in the tax bases used by subnational governments in eight federations. It is argued that globalisation may strengthen the relative tax powers of state and local governments, while at the same time increasing the public's willingness to pay for education and infrastructure, public services which are provided by subnational governments in many federations.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.344 · 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