Critique et rethéorisation de la dichotomie entre théorie du bénéfice et théorie de la capacité contributive en matière de justice fiscale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionnellement les discours sur la justice fiscale se deploient et sont analyses dans le cadre de deux theories vues comme concurrentes ou complementaires. La premiere est la theorie du benefice qui considere comme juste une repartition de l’impot en fonction de ce que le contribuable retire des services de l’Etat. La seconde est celle de la capacite contributive qui considere comme juste une repartition de l’impot en fonction de la faculte du contribuable a supporter le fardeau fiscal. Cette lecture en deux ideaux types, qui a ete popularisee a la fin du XIXe siecle, dans le cadre du debat de l’impot progressif sur le revenu, s’est sclerosee et tend a charrier une conception depassee de l’impot. Loin de jouer son role heuristique, cette partition va tantot agir en trompe-l’oeil, tantot faire ecran a des analyses des axiomes des theories de la justice fiscale. Ceci a pour consequence de participer a la creation de theories de la justice fiscale non coherentes, de stereotyper les nouvelles productions theoriques et d’affaiblir l’idee meme de justice fiscale. C’est pourquoi il sera recherche et analyse les fondements et axiomes a l’origine des deux theories afin d’en proposer une reformulation. Il s’agira de differencier les doctrines de la justice fiscale en fonction de leurs elements ethiques et scientifiques. A partir de cette decomposition, les theories seront classees et analysees sous l’egide d’un double couple. Le premier, qui porte sur l’element ethique, repartit les doctrines en theories volontaristes et theories materialistes. Le second, qui porte sur l’element scientifique, repartit les doctrines en theories individualistes et theories holistiques.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".