MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947932930 · doi:10.7202/1058577ar

Le recours aux conventions fiscales internationales comme remède à la double imposition : bref survol de la pratique canadienne

2019· article· fr· W2947932930 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Alain Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La double imposition des revenus et du capital constitue un obstacle certain au commerce international et aux investissements. Afin de prévenir ou de corriger les problèmes résultant de cet obstacle, les États ont recouru à la négociation de conventions fiscales. Le Canada n’a pas fait exception à la règle puisqu’au 1er août 1987, 45 conventions fiscales étaient en vigueur. L’objectif du présent article est de faire le point sur les aspects importants des conventions fiscales canadiennes, à partir de leur négociation jusqu’à leur administration.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0130.028
Scholarly communication0.0230.012
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0100.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207