Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tax scholars have long suggested that tax competition should be mitigated because it reduces the collective revenues of countries, impairs their ability to redistribute wealth, and produces more regressive tax systems.Likewise, international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD") and the European Union increasingly move towards designing a global framework aimed at reducing tax avoidance and mitigating tax competition.However, there is no comprehensive discussion on the costs that would arise from institutional reform designed to tackle tax competition.To the extent that any change in the international tax order will benefit some countries but also harm others, an ethical analysis of tax competition should include an examination of how to distribute the losses resulting from overall institutional reform.As international policy decisions tend to reproduce the present imbalance of the global power, the lack of an explicit discussion on how to share the costs arising from an institutional change might result in countries with less negotiating power bearing most of these costs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".