Methodological Approaches towards Assessing the Efficacy of a Region’s Budgetary/Taxation Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an analysis of existing methodologies for assessing the efficacy of a region’s budgetary/taxation policy and identifies their strengths and weaknesses. The author argues in favor of that the efficacy of a region’s entire budgetary/taxation policy can be assessed by the efficiency of the activity of the executive authorities in the above focus areas based on the correlation of goals set and results achieved. An objectively set criterion of the efficacy of a region’s budgetary/taxation policy is the minimum degree of chasms between goals set and results achieved. The author proposes quantitatively measured indicators as criteria of the efficacy of budgetary/taxation policy. On the strength of the analysis conducted, the author proposes a way to assess the efficacy of a region’s budgetary/taxation policy, which is based on systematizing an aggregate of measures with a breakdown into structural determinants and calculating the integral coefficient, which, compared with existing methodologies, makes it possible to give an integral and structured, in terms of key blocks, assessment of the efficacy of a region’s budgetary/taxation policy both over time and through comparison with other regions and increase the validity and accuracy of the assessment for working out practical recommendations. The author chooses as the basis of his calculation of the integral indicator of the efficacy of a region’s budgetary/taxation policy the method of distances, which is based on taking account of the proximity of objects under examination to the touchstone object by indicators compared.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".