MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2597836000 · doi:10.11575/prism/30100

Evaluating Canada's Tax Policy on the Second-Hand Market

2016· article· en· W2597836000 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Sean McCann

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsEconomicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of the second-hand marketplace over the last decade has shaped the way individuals buy and sell personal-use property in Canada. With the establishment of internet services such as Kijiji, individuals are able to advertise their used, second-hand personal-use property to a mass audience and sell to a specific buyer quickly and easily. These noncommercial transactions are commonplace in Canada and therefore each jurisdiction administering a sales tax maintains some form of guidance for these transactions as well as when and how sales tax is collected. Governments in Canada implement and maintain tax policies for transactions in the second-hand economy despite limited discussion in the academic literature. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate what guidance the academic literature provides, and compare these understandings to what is currently practiced in Canada’s sales tax jurisdictions. Through this comparison of the literature with a jurisdictional scan of policies throughout Canada, this paper will investigate how adequately aligned Canadian sales taxes are with the recommendations provided in the literature.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→