MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122094711

Symposium on Tax Avoidance After Canada Trustco and Mathew: Summary of Proceedings

2005· article· en· W3122094711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Alarie, Sanjana Bhatia, David G. Duff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)Supreme courtPolitical scienceTax avoidanceLawAgency (philosophy)Income taxEconomic JusticeTax courtSection (typography)TaxpayerTax reformSociologyBusinessAdvertising
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On October 19, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decisions in The Queen v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. and Mathew v. The Queen, the first two cases from Canada's highest court addressing the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) in section 245 of the federal Income Tax Act. The Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto hosted a symposium on November 18, 2005, which brought together academics, practitioners, representatives of the Canada Revenue Agency, and Chief Justice Donald Bowman of the Tax Court of Canada to discuss the implications of the decisions. This article summarizes the formal presentations and comments of participants in the proceedings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207