Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overview of The Report on the Panel on the Role of Government(2004). This Report includes recommendations for a number of new spending initiatives, as well as regulatory and tax reforms. The purpose of this review is to appraise the fiscal feasibility of implementing the Panel's recommendations over a medium term (10 to 12 year) period. The main thrust of the Panel's recommendations is for the enhancement of human capital in Ontario; indeed the sub-title of their report is "Creating a Human Capital Society in Ontario." Increased spending on education accounts for the lion?s share of the new spending initiatives in the Panel?s Report, as is shown in Table 1. When fully implemented, the Panel's recommendations would entail increased annual spending on post-secondary education of $1.3 billion. Other spending initiatives include a childcare subsidy, costing about $150 million, and a rent subsidy for low-income persons, also costing about $150 million. In current dollars the total cost of the Panel's new spending initiatives would be about $2.7 billion when fully implemented. However, the total cost will likely increase in the future with inflation and the growth of the relevant demographic age groups. Taking into account those two factors, the total cost of the panel's recommendations would rise by about 2 to 3 percent per year.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".