Bibliographic record
Abstract
MY REMARKS ARE STIMULATED BY MY READING of Robin Boadway’s contribution in this volume in honour of Ian Stewart on rethinking tax/transfer policy in Canada. His paper provides an interesting and readable overview of contemporary applied tax theory as embodied in the Mirrlees Review (2011). It begins with a concise survey of theory concerning business taxation, the individual income tax, transfers to low income people, indirect taxation and, going somewhat beyond taxation, of public policy to ensure equality of opportunity. The design in these respects that emerged from the Mirrlees Review (2011) is the center of attention. In the main portion of the paper, Professor Boadway considers how the ideas about design that emanate from the Mirrlees Review play out when placed in the Canadian context. Five features of the country are acknowledged as being of particular importance to the application of Mirrlees to Canada: our federal structure; the role of natural resources, especially their geographical concentration as well as control by provinces; the absence of inheritance taxation; the Fred Gorbet and Andrew Sharpe (eds.). New Directions for Intelligent Government in Canada: Papers in Honour of Ian Stewart. Ottawa: Center for the Study of Living Standards. 205 - 210.
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 | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".