A conceptual framework for digital tax administration - A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tax administrations worldwide have become highly digitised with a diverse and sophisticated array of e-services to enhance the taxpayer experience. Nevertheless, given the high rates of failure of e-government services, it is critical to understand the factors that are essential to the success of a digital tax system. Drawing on a systematic review of ninety-six publications across the digital taxation, taxation, and information systems (IS) literature, a comprehensive conceptual framework is developed to improve our success of digital services in tax administration. The conceptual framework identifies fifteen themes for consideration by policymakers when designing digital services in tax administrations clustered around four categories – Context, Stakeholders, Technology and Demonstrated Results. The framework should also serve as a reference point in successfully developing strategies and measures to embed digital services in tax administrations. Future research directions are also proposed based on the conceptual framework that will help advance our understanding of digital services in tax administration beyond technology acceptance models.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it