MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014716459 · doi:10.32721/ctj.2020.68.1.sym.li

Automation and Workers: Re-Imagining the Income Tax for the Digital Age

2020· article· en· W3014716459 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jinyan Li, Arjin Choi, Cameron Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGross incomeLabour economicsIncome taxState income taxBusinessInternational taxationSubsidyEconomicsPublic economicsTax reformMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the age of automation, more and more workers lose jobs or become gig workers, and the share of labour income in national income is expected to decline further. These developments threaten the sustainability of Canada's 102-year-old income tax as a major source of government revenue and a key instrument for redistributing social income. The authors make the case for re-imagining the income tax to suit the digital age. They propose that all workers should be taxed the same, regardless of the private-law arrangements or technical means used to carry out the work. They call for a reconceptualization of the source of income as human capital, capital, or business. They suggest ways of amending the Income Tax Act to ensure that income from work is not embedded in capital or disguised as active business income that warrants tax subsidies. To ensure the implementation of such re-imagined tax, the authors suggest broadening the scope of withholding tax by taking advantage of technological advances.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienneSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207