Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Income Tax Act provides a unique system of tax incentives to encourage the disposition of cultural property to public institutions by way of donation or sale. These tax incentives comprise a tax expenditure designed to indirectly support government policy objectives with respect to art and cultural property. This cultural property program is limited to gifts of particular property — “certified cultural property” — to “designated institutions.” The income tax incentives associated with disposition of cultural property are part of a larger statutory scheme under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act which controls the export out of and import into Canada of cultural property. At the centre of this statutory scheme is an administrative body, the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, which plays a key role in fulfilling the objectives of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and has a unique role in the administration of the income tax incentives pertaining to the disposition of cultural property; in particular in its responsibility for determining value for the purpose of issuing cultural property certificates under the Income Tax Act. Disputes over valuation of cultural property have been the focus of the debate amongst the stakeholders and in the Courts this is where this tax expenditure has been tested and recent decisions have determined its limits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".