MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121324182 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v2i1.42324

Will Alberta Lose Its Tax Advantage?

2009· article· en· W3121324182 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jack Mintz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta historically has prided itself on its provincial tax advantage, and for good reason. With abundant natural resource revenues, the province has been able to leverage its advantage to attract capital and people in order to grow and diversify its economy. Low tax rates have also meant fewer disincentives for people to work and invest in Alberta than they face in other provinces. Alberta’s tax advantage, however, is diminishing as tax regimes in other provinces become more competitive. In part, this is good news for Alberta since tax reductions, both in other provinces and at the federal level, make Canada a more attractive place in which to do business, which, in turn, increases demand for Alberta’s goods and services. The bad news is that Alberta could lose its tax advantage altogether within a decade if its balanced-budget spending growth requires increased taxation. In this Communiqué, I suggest an approach that would maintain Alberta’s tax competitiveness: a rule limiting spending increases and a move toward a growth-maximizing, less volatile tax structure by shifting taxes away from investment and savings toward levies related to private and public consumption.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207