Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an offshoot of public finance theory, fiscal federalism theory analyses the special fiscal problems which arise in federal countries, drawing on the theory of public goods, taxation and public debt incidence, public choice theories of the political process and various aspects of locational theory. More specifically, fiscal federalism theory attempts to supply answers to the following questions: reasons for adopting a federal structure, rules for the assignment of activities and revenue sources to various levels of government, the efficiency properties of free and unrestricted migration from one jurisdiction to another, and the role for inter-governmental revenue transfers and their most desirable forms in a federal structure (see Grewal et al. 1980, pp. xi–xii). With its policy orientation towards practical fiscal problems in federations, it is not surprising that this branch of public finance literature has flourished particularly in the North American federations of Canada and the United States as well as in federal countries like Australia and West Germany. Fiscal federalism theory is also clearly of relevance to less well defined federal structures like Austria, India, China, Nigeria, Spain, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. However, as King (1984) is at pains to point out, the theory can also be applied to questions about the design and operation of systems of multi-level government in non-federations like the United Kingdom because it sheds light on the public finance of local government and devolution of powers to components of the union like Scotland and Wales. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".