Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debates over the adequacy of Aboriginal funding usually miss a key and neglected component: tax exemptions. Section 87 of the Indian Act dictates such exemptions. This section clearly states that no person living on reserve may be taxed for their work there, nor can any product or service delivered to or on reserve be taxed. This means multiple millions of dollars stay in the hands of First Nations people when they would otherwise go into provincial and federal coffers. Prior to this capstone, no one has made as comprehensive an effort to calculate the aggregate value of all reserve tax exemptions. Thomas Courchene estimated in 1992 that if all Aboriginal reserves constituted a province, it would get $103 million in provincial income taxes. In 2012, Gormanns and Waslander estimating that the tax exemption on B.C. reserves was worth $20 million. Via information requests, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) also revealed substantial tobacco tax exemptions of $54 million for tobacco and $14 million in fuel in Saskatchewan in 2008-09. Some advocacy and anti-smoking organizations have also drawn attention to the problem of illegal contraband cigarettes that originate from reserves.
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".