MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955403194 · doi:10.5430/afr.v8n3p43

Analysis of the Corporate Behaviors after the Corporate Tax Cuts with Respect to Job Creation: A Preliminary Study of Select Corporations in the United States of America

2019· article· en· W2955403194 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Narendra Sharma, Ebere A. Oriaku, Ngozi Oriaku

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessRevenueWorkforceSample (material)Investment (military)Job creationTax revenueFinanceLabour economicsDemographic economicsAccountingEconomicsPublic economicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A preliminary study of the impact of tax cuts on job creation was done by studying a random sample of 12 largest corporations selected from the Fortune 500 companies. The Annual Reports of the 12 sample companies pre-tax cut and post-tax cut periods were downloaded, and figures tabulated for revenues, property, plant, and equipment (PPE) as well as employees reported by those companies for both the periods. We found that the revenue increased by an average of 7.78 percent which showed signs of growth in those companies, but the investment in PPE by the companies during the same period increased at an average of only 0.32 percent, which indicated that the companies did not divert the resources they saved in taxes to add capacity. Therefore, the potential for jobs growth was nonexistent or minimal. Another indicator showed the same outcome as the companies reported their workforce reduced since 2017 by an average of 0.54 percent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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 venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207