MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2191024765

Policy Forum: Taxation of Machinery and Equipment and Linear Property in Alberta

2015· preprint· en· W2191024765 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brian W. Conger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPer capitaBusinessRevenueInvestment (military)PopulationTax revenueFixed assetAgricultural economicsFinanceEconomicsProduction (economics)Public economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipalities in Alberta collected $1.75 billion from the taxation of machinery and equipment and linear property (MELP) in 2013. MELP taxes are fixed charges that reduce cash flow and increase the cost of new investments in oil sands projects, unconventional and conventional oil and gas developments, and pipelines. The distribution of the MELP tax base is highly concentrated among a few municipal districts and specialized municipalities, with the top 10 municipalities accounting for 56 percent of the $113.7 billion in equalized MELP assessment in 2013. Four municipalities collected more than $10,000 per capita in municipal property taxes in 2013, with the Municipal District of Opportunity, population 3,061, receiving the largest amount, $21,329 per capita. In addition to the disparities in the per capita assessments, some municipalities have taken advantage of the presence of fixed, location-specific, MELP investments to impose very high non-residential mill rates, so as to collect additional tax revenues. Provincial policies regarding MELP taxation should be reviewed, given the concentration of MELP tax revenues in a few municipalities and the negative impact that these taxes can have on investment in the oil and gas industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienneSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207