MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920991568 · doi:10.3968/10941

The Difference Between Taxation and Administrative Fees From the Perspective of Administrative Law

2019· article· en· W2920991568 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xi Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentBusinessPublic economicsRevenueFinanceBeneficiaryAdministrative lawGovernment (linguistics)Law and economicsEconomicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is tax? What is administrative fee? It is the first question to be proposed in the study on administrative fee. Connotations and denotations of administrative fee could be only determined based on the comparison of administrative fee and tax. The prime difference between tax and fee could be seen from the following three points. First of all, the purpose of collection is different. The purpose or attached purpose for the government to collect tax is to increase fiscal revenues, and offer general and ordinary government services to the public. While the purpose to collect fee is to make up the cost spent in specific services for sake of individuals. Secondly, tax refers to public debts without reciprocal payment, while fee refers to reciprocal payment of specific public services. Thirdly, tax compliant with “capability payment principle” determines tax rate according to “taxation on capability principle” in measuring taxation liability. While by contrast, fee compliant with “user payment principle” or “beneficiary payment principle” determines rate according to “cost or fee compensation principle” or “fee coverage principle” in measuring payment liability.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207