Dispensing Charity: The Deficiencies of an All-or-Nothing Fiscal Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In deciding the means, levels, and targets of taxation and spending across third-sector organizations, governments seeking to increase social welfare should use fiscal concepts and indicators that can detect and grade the welfare consequences of their decisions. On these terms, charity, as its meaning has originated and evolved in common law, is a deficient fiscal concept: it is neither teleological nor gradational, and therefore can offer no guidance on how to design and differentiate the fiscal treatment of third-sector organizations in ways that could increase social welfare. In general, the national governments of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, India, and Singapore treat uniformly the third-sector organizations whose purposes comply with the legal meaning of charity. In order to reform and differentiate that treatment with the prospect of increasing social welfare thereby, governments should start by dispensing with charity as a fiscal concept.
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 | 0.054 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".