MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2301596632 · doi:10.14288/1.0101661

An analysis of the real property assessments and taxes in British Columbia

2011· article· en· W2301596632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wayne Leslie Tomko

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty (philosophy)Real propertyEconomicsActuarial scienceBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Real Property Tax requires a major outlay of funds by most property and non-property owners. Property owners are directly affected by the tax, in that they pay the taxes to the taxing authorities, while the non-property owners are indirectly affected as the property tax paid by the owners is reflected in the rents which the non-property owners pay. Because of the magnitude of the property tax as a proportion of the property owners net income or disposable income, the individuals right or obligation of an equal portion of the tax burden should be upheld. The portion of the total tax burden for which a property taxpayer is responsible, is determined by the "actual value" of his real property, subject to legislative exemptions and reliefs. To ascertain the degree of the equality of the tax burden a sample of 1632 properties was obtained consisting of seven different land uses from eight-municipalities located within the Greater Vancouver area. For each property in the sample the adjusted selling price, assessed value of land and improvements for municipal and school purposes, and the net taxes payable were obtained. To furnish the reader with some insight as to the causes of possible tax inequalities between municipalities, land uses, or price categories within municipalities, calculations measuring the degree of assessment uniformity and equality were executed. The findings of this thesis give evidence that the tax burden between municipalities, land uses and price categories within municipalities are not equally distributed as the concept of equality was defined. Further, it was discovered that these inequalities were, in part, due to the occurrance of unacceptable levels of assessment inequality and ununiformity.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicHousing Market and Economics→French-language works237,207→