Financiación autonómica y administración tributaria: una propuesta de modelo integrado de gestión
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolAnte la proxima reforma del sistema de financiacion autonomica parece existir un amplio consenso acerca de la necesidad de extender el debate al modelo de gestion tributaria. El objetivo principal de este trabajo es aportar luz a la discusion sobre el modelo ideal para administrar un sistema tributario como el espanol, muy descentralizado. Para ello, el trabajo revisa inicialmente algunas experiencias comparadas consideradas relevantes (Alemania, Canada, Estados Unidos y Suecia), presentandose a continuacion un marco teorico en el que se identifican los elementos fundamentales para la eleccion del modelo de administracion tributaria en paises con fuerte descentralizacion fiscal. Tras una revision de las principales alternativas basicas, se realiza una presentacion valorativa de la situacion actual en Espana. El trabajo concluye esbozando una propuesta de reforma consistente en un modelo de administracion tributaria integrada EnglishIn the context of the next reform of the system for financing autonomous communities, it seems that there is a wide consensus regarding the need to extend the debate around the tax management model. The main objective of this work is to bring light to the discussion on the ideal model for managing a tax system like that of Spain; highly decentralised. In order to do this, the work initially reviews and compares several experiences that are deemed relevant (Germany, Canada, the USA and Sweden), and then presents a theoretical framework in which the fundamental elements for selecting the tax management model in countries with strong fiscal decentralisation are identified. After reviewing the main basic alternatives, the work offers an evaluative presentation of the current situation in Spain. It concludes by outlining a consistent reform proposal within an integrated tax administration model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".