MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2249522542

Impacts of Quebec's 2010 Budget on the Province's Tax Burden (Le Budget 2010 du Québec: Effets sur la taille et la progressivité du fardeau fiscal)

2010· article· fr· W2249522542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandre Laurin

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsTax reformCompromisePublic economicsIndirect taxIncome taxEconomic policyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tax measures announced in the latest Quebec budget strike a balance between good economic outcomes and attention to fairness in how tax burdens are shared. The author assesses Quebec’s budget measures according to their impacts on the tax burden and how well provincial taxes match citizens’ abilities to pay. Despite the fact that the new tax measures are imperfectly geared to income, the alternative of confining the burden of required tax increases to fewer, higher income individuals would carry a high economic cost. Quebecers are already among the highest taxed in the country while Quebec’s tax system is the most progressive. The budget proposals will raise taxes, widening the gap with the rest of Canada, yet the tax system will remain more “progressive” than that of most other provinces. All in all, the budget measures are a reasonable compromise between distributional fairness and sound economic outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→