MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292784252

The Supreme Court's 2013 Tax Cases: Side-Stepping the Interesting, Important and Difficult Issues

2015· article· en· W2292784252 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Neil Brooks, Kim Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLaw and economicsLawEconomicsPolitical scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada heard three tax cases. Our review of the year argues that the Court resolved those cases by relying on narrow formalistic points that did little to advance our understanding of tax principles of tax law. In particular, the Court was invited to consider the tax treatment of contingent liabilities assumed by the buyer in a sale of business assets; the taxation of amalgamations that do not meet the qualifying conditions for the applicable rollover provision; and the conditions under which rectification should be available in tax planning.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207