Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Proposed United States-Canada Income Tax TreatyA new income tax treaty between the United States and Canada was signed on September 26, 1980,1 culminating a seven-year effort to revise the current treaty which dates back to 1942.While there are notable advantages to both American and Canadian taxpayers with the new treaty, Senate ratification of the treaty in its present form is far from certain."Natural resources companies and real estate developers with holdings in Canada are potential losers under the 1980 treaty and can be expected to lobby intensively for modification when the treaty comes up for approval in 1981.All sides agree that a new treaty was needed because the old one is outdated.'Current investment attitudes of individuals and businesses differ dramatically from the pre-World War II investment attitudes expressed in the current treaty.Yet, while the new treaty may be welcomed as more reflective of the investment climate of the 1980's, one expressed concern with the new treaty is that it is a "labyrinth of detail, far more so than most tax treaties."'s Nevertheless, the 1980 treaty contains numerous potential benefits and losses to be enjoyed and suffered by investors.In many respects, the new treaty does not significantly change the existing treaty.The 1980 treaty continues the joint American-Canadian effort to avoid double taxation and to prevent fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital.4 In addition, the treatment of income 1.Income Tax Treaty, Sept. 26, 1980, United States-Canada,
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".