MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952465249 · doi:10.1177/152397211701700401

Why Do Per-Household Expenditures Differ between Municipalities?

2017· article· en· W2952465249 on OpenAlex
Joseph Kushner, Tomson Ogwang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Finance and Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNew Zealand Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEconomicsAgricultural economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that account for variation in per-household expenditures between municipalities. Using multiple regression techniques, we find that it is advantageous for a community to have growth and a high percent of non-residential to residential assessment. We also find that larger sized municipalities have higher per-household expenditures. However, the impact of size on the various categories is mixed with some being subject to economies of scale whereas others are subject to diseconomies. Thus, there is a potential for municipalities to lower their expenditures by growth, by increasing commercial and industrial assessment and by consolidating with other municipalities those services that are subject to economies of scale. Since 80% of expenditures in Ontario are financed by local revenues such as taxes and user fees, the determinants of expenditures should give an indication as to why these local revenue sources differ between municipalities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.161 · 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