Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours des dernières années, une plus grande attention a été accordée à l’accroissement des inégalités de revenus qu’à l’augmentation des inégalités de capital. Pourtant, les données montrent qu’actuellement, le capital est beaucoup plus fortement concentré que le revenu. Pour lutter contre de telles inégalités, il existe un outil fiscal négligé aussi bien par les États que par les chercheurs : l’impôt sur le capital. Dans cet article, je tente de pallier cette lacune en expliquant ce qu’est l’impôt sur le capital, puis en examinant comment il peut être justifié en vertu de certaines théories relatives à la justice distributive, dont le suffisantisme, le principe de différence, le limitarisme et la richesse maximale. Cela me permet de soutenir en définitive que l’impôt sur le capital est un outil fiscal dont on aurait tort de se priver si l’on souhaite réduire les inégalités de capital et promouvoir certaines conceptions de la justice distributive.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".