MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907882505

Concurrence fiscale et biens publics

2018· article· en· W2907882505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michel Poitevin

Bibliographic record

VenueCIRANO Project Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceConcurrencePublicsHumanitiesPhilosophyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis quelques décennies, l’ouverture des économies et la mondialisation qui en a résulté ont modifié l’environnement dans lequel les gouvernements œuvrent. Le capital et la main d’œuvre sont beaucoup plus mobiles qu’avant et cette mobilité affecte la capacité des gouvernements à taxer les revenus de ces facteurs de production. Leur capacité à fournir des biens publics et à redistribuer la richesse est donc compromise. Les gouvernements en concurrence au niveau de la fiscalité doivent en tenir compte dans l’établissement de leurs politiques fiscales. Le présent rapport fait état de la littérature tant théorique qu’empirique sur la concurrence fiscale en portant une attention particulière aux bien publics. Deux propositions émergent de cette étude. D’abord, il serait intéressant de considérer, à l’instar de la Suède, une taxation différente des revenus de travail et ceux du capital. Comme ce dernier est généralement plus mobile, il devrait être moins taxé. Ceci limiterait les effets de la concurrence fiscale et également de l’évasion fiscale. Ensuite, il serait important, pour le cas du Québec, d’estimer les estimés de migration de différents types de travailleurs afin de quantifier les effets de la concurrence fiscale. Ceci permettrait entre autres de faire une évaluation de programmes ciblés pour attirer des travailleurs étrangers qualifiés.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIRANO Project ReportsSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207