MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Policy Forum: Taxing Wealth Transfers in Canada Using an Accession Tax

2020· article· en· W3097080859 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Graham Purse

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccessionEconomicsAdministration (probate law)State income taxDouble taxationDirect taxNational wealthTax reformAd valorem taxEconomic policyPublic economicsPolitical scienceFinanceEuropean unionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wealth transfer taxes have had a long history in Canada: the Rowell-Sirois report suggested federal administration; the Carter report emphasized the importance of including wealth transfers in income. Yet by the 1980s wealth transfer taxes had largely disappeared in Canada. This article makes the case for consideration of an accession tax, which taxes wealth transfers in the recipients' hands. An accession tax has significant administrative advantages over the annual wealth tax featured in current popular debates.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207