MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098711823 · doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00030

Efficient Redistribution Using Quotas and Subsidies in the Presence of Misrepresentation and Cheating

2000· article· en· W2098711823 on OpenAlex
Konstantinos Giannakas, Murray Fulton

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

VenueAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyMisrepresentationCheatingRedistribution (election)EconomicsRedistribution of income and wealthPublic economicsMicroeconomicsMarket economyPublic goodLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper introduces misrepresentation and cheating into the policy analysis of output quotas and subsidies. Analytical results show that when cheating occurs output quotas are a less efficient means of income redistribution than is traditionally believed. As well, cheating increases the transfer efficiency of output subsidies. The result is that an all‐or‐nothing choice between quotas and subsidies will generally favor the use of subsidies. A combination of quotas and subsidies, however, usually remains the most efficient means of income redistribution through market intervention.

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)0.000
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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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