Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international tax system incentivizes unsustainable business practices because it ignores the private profits created by externalizing human, societal, and environmental costs. This paper proposes a novel reform: applying living wage and externality assessment tools to the rules for establishing where income arises for tax purposes. To do so, I propose a method that is relatively complex but arguably more accurate (in tax terms) and a complementary but relatively simpler proxy method. I examine how each method would implicate treaty-based and domestic rules and processes and conclude that the proposed design provides a viable starting point to make the global tax system support sustainable business practices without running afoul of international standards and without necessarily driving down cross-border investment.\nLe système fiscal international encourage les pratiques commerciales non durables parce qu’il ne tient pas compte des profits privés créés par l’externalisation des coûts humains, sociétaux et environnementaux. Cet article propose une réforme novatrice : l’application d’outils d’évaluation du revenu de subsistance et des externalités aux règles permettant de déterminer le lieu d’origine du revenu à des fins fiscales. Pour ce faire, je propose une méthode relativement complexe mais sans doute plus précise (en termes fiscaux), ou alors une méthode de substitution complémentaire mais relativement plus simple. J’examine comment chaque méthode impliquerait des règles et des processus nationaux et fondés sur des traités, et je conclus que la conception proposée constitue un point de départ viable pour que le système fiscal mondial soutienne les pratiques commerciales durables sans enfreindre les normes internationales et sans nécessairement faire diminuer les investissements étrangers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".