MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009517432 · doi:10.1920/wp.ifs.1998.9807

Horizontal inequity comparisons

2017· paratext· en· W2009517432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valentino Dardanoni, Peter J. Lambert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)AxiomEconometricsStatistical inferenceInferenceJoint probability distributionEconomicsMathematical economicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we expound the idea that horizontal inequity (HI) in different tax systems be compared by transplanting the HI from one tax system into the other, as a mapping between its pre- and post-tax living standard distributions, and then applying known results to compare the extent of association present in the two joint distributions. We make this idea operational by means of axioms which, we show, lead to an implementable procedure based on the `copula'. Statistical inference procedures are discussed, and illustrative empirical exercises are undertaken for the UK, Canadian and Israeli tax and benefit systems.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207