Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade, Canada has undertaken extensive business tax reform, with sharply lower corporate income tax rates, better capital cost allowances, sales tax harmonization, and the virtual elimination of capital tax on non-financial businesses. Further changes are in store by 2012 that will put Canada in the middle of the pack of a broad group of 80 countries. Over the past several years, however, Canada has lost some standing. In 2005, it was the fourth-highest-taxed country, and by 2007 it had improved to thirteenth highest; by 2009, though, it had worsened to tenth highest. Still, in that year, taking into account the reforms that had taken place, Canada’s business tax structure was better than that of the United States. Canada’s tax competitiveness among the Group-of-7 major industrialized countries has also improved, but still lags that of most other members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Additional reductions of business taxes by 2013 — particularly sales tax harmonization in Ontario and British Columbia and planned federal and provincial corporate tax rate reductions — will further improve Canada’s business tax competitiveness, crucially with respect to the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Yet federal opposition parties are urging an end to further planned reductions of federal and provincial corporate income tax rates. Such a move would be seriously misguided. Not only would it put Canada’s tax competitiveness at a disadvantage among OECD countries, impairing productivity; it would also harm government revenues as businesses shifted their profits out of high-tax jurisdictions and into lower-tax one abroad.
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 | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.009 |
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".