MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127397791 · doi:10.5539/cis.v4n3p60

Comprehensive Evaluation System and Selection Method of Tax Software

2011· article· en· W2127397791 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Anhui Province
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwareWork (physics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Service (business)Operator (biology)Factor (programming language)Quality (philosophy)Operations researchIndustrial engineeringArtificial intelligenceOperating systemEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tax software has direct influence on the work efficiency and service quality of tax department. How to evaluate objectively and make the correct choice are problems that must be solved in the construction of tax informationization. The comprehensive evaluation system of tax software is firstly designed by its performance factor, developer factor and cost factor according to the industry characteristics of tax work, Then, corresponding evaluation selection method is given which combined by weighted arithmetic averaged operator. The software section of the state taxation bureau in certain city is taken as an example to explain the effectiveness of the evaluation system and method.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.277 · 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