Bibliographic record
Abstract
Austria has 91 tax agreements in force, as reported in its response to the Peer Review questionnaire. 20 of those agreements, Since Russia made use of Art 35 (7) MLI and has only recently confirmed completion of the necessary procedures, the MLI only enters into effect for the treaty between Austria and Russia for the taxable period 2021.Moreover, Switzerland also made use of Art 35 (7) MLI and has not yet notified the MLI’s entry into effect for Austria. Switzerland has informed Austria that Switzerland can only notify the completion of internal procedures with respect to a jurisdiction if Switzerland have reached agreement with that jurisdiction that the MLI applies to a tax treaty in the same way as a new protocol to the treaty and have also reached agreement on the exact wording of the changes made by the MLI to the treaty text, including the addition of new articles and paragraphs to the treaty (for instance in the case of the PPT). Since this is not in line with Austria’s current understanding of the legal effects of the MLI, Austria is currently in the process of determining the best way forward. It is therefore not to be expected that the MLI will enter into effect between Switzerland and Austria before 30 June 2020. the agreements with Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, India, The MLI only enters into effect for other taxes levied by Austria in 2021, however, it is in force for Austrian withholding taxes beginning in 2020 and it is in force for all taxes levied by India beginning in 2020. Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kosovo*, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The MLI only enters into effect for other taxes levied by Austria in 2021, however, it is in force for Austrian withholding taxes beginning in 2020 and it is in force for all taxes levied by Luxembourg beginning in 2020. Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and the United Kingdom, comply with the minimum standard.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.442 | 0.355 |
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".