MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W320452491

Interdivision Fiscal Equity in Saskatchewan, 1985-2000: An Analysis of Spending Equity and Wealth Neutrality.

2004· article· en· W320452491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerry Paquette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of education finance · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)EconomicsRural areaRevenueContext (archaeology)Public economicsGeographyPolitical scienceFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the spring of 2002 the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan requested a study of expenditure and revenue equity and wealth neutrality in Saskatchewan from 1985 through 2000. The Saskatchewan context is unusual, an economy quite dependent on agriculture, politics that have bifurcated along urban-rural lines, and numerous other characteristics that distinguish Saskatchewan from most other North American jurisdictions. As expected, some urban areas spent more than rural areas, and nonrural divisions had greater spending and revenue variance than rural divisions, especially when tuition and transportation are removed; the division responsible for education in the north spent more than other divisions, and so forth. However, this study produced some remarkable results in other respects, most notably a negative relationship between per-pupil spending and revenue on one hand and per-pupil wealth on the other for all categories of school divisions except rural divisions in conjunction with growing positive relationships for rural divisions and growing rural dependence on the local property tax source, especially in the wake of major property assessment reforms in 1997.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of education financeSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207