Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Financial Services Commission (hereinafter,“FSC”) unveiled its“Plan to Introduce a Korean version of Individual Savings Account (hereinafter, “KISA”)”in September 2014 followed by the ministry of Strategy and Finance’s announcement that it would adopt the KISA in connection with reforming the existing tax-exempt savings schemes. According to the Plan, a KISA is defined as a single account that holds diverse financial products and provides tax exemptions to any income. The KISA scheme is expected to take concrete shape after Korea-specific conditions (e.g., Korea’s existing tax-exempt financial products, the current state of savings and investments, and the financial income tax scheme), as well as a thorough review on overseas similar schemes, such as Individual Savings Account (hereinafter,“ISA”) in the UK, Tax-free Savings Account (hereinafter,“TFSA”) in Canada and Nippon Individual Savings Account (“NISA”) in Japan. Although little is known about the KISA scheme yet, the FSC’s September 2014 Plan offers rough outlines. Except for the income tax exemption on interests and dividends, the KISA scheme is expected to diverge from the ISA, TFSA and NISA schemes in many ways; eligible account holders, annual contribution limits, eligible financial products, types of tax benefits, etc. In the near future, the Korean government is expected to draw out its blueprint which maps out policy objectives and concrete designs for Korea’s tax-free savings account scheme. Tax-free savings account schemes in the UK, Canada, and Japan offer important, common implications for how to promote precautionary savings: First, savings and investments held by low- to middle-income earners must not face any withdrawal restriction, and second, financial consumers should be able to choose from financial products to suit their household needs and risk preferences. Arguably, how to design a tax-free savings account scheme has a significant impact on households’ financial asset accumulation, and interests among financial industries. The hope is that regulators will carry out an exhaustive review and comparison on overseas cases and apply the results to Korea’s current situation in order to establish a more complete tax-free savings account scheme.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.031 |
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".