MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Environmental Taxation

2019· book-chapter· en· W4247022395 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet E. Milne

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLegal and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental taxPublic economicsCITESDirect taxEnvironmental lawTax deferralEconomicsDouble taxationInternational taxationIncentiveBusinessTax reformPolitical scienceState income taxLawGross incomeMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter examines the comparative merits of environmental taxation as an environmental policy instrument. It first provides a brief background on the theoretical foundation for merging environmental protection with taxation before discussing two categories of environmental taxation instruments: environmental taxes (e.g. emissions or effluent taxes, product taxes, energy taxes, pollution taxes) and environmental tax expenditures (also known as tax preferences or tax incentives). It then considers the legal authority of governments to create and administer an environmental taxation instrument, along with the basic legal design features of environmental taxes. It also cites specific examples that illustrate the diversity of environmentally related taxes. Finally, it demonstrates the use of environmental taxation in practice by presenting case studies of carbon taxes in several jurisdictions such as British Columbia, Ireland, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the European Union, as well as the United States’ income tax credit for wind farms.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.012

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicLegal and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207