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
Why this book? In recent times, countries have increasingly shifted their focus towards the curbing of tax avoidance and abuse. Accordingly, the G20 countries commissioned the OECD to undertake the BEPS Project, following which the OECD released its Final Reports on 15 distinct Actions in 2015. Further, the OECD also released the Multilateral Instrument, a multilateral tax treaty through which the application of thousands of bilateral tax treaties may be modified as regards the tax treaty-related proposals stemming from the BEPS Project. Presently, while several countries have already implemented large portions of these proposals, others have only implemented them to a limited extent. This may be due to several reasons, such as lack of relevance or administrative capacity, or differing policy priorities. However, as the Inclusive Framework is in the process of peer reviewing the compliance of each member with the minimum standards, more and more countries are implementing at least these minimum standards. Significantly, the BEPS Project has also given rise to new multilateral measures such as the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive, which has led to a minimum level of harmonization in the European Union regarding some of the BEPS measures. This book explores the various ways in which countries have implemented the key proposals emerging from the BEPS Project. Through contributions made by national reporters from 36 different countries – including developed, developing and emerging economies – the book constitutes an expert guide to the varied perspectives towards the BEPS Project across the globe. While discussing the implementation of the BEPS Project, this study provides an in-depth analysis of the obstacles faced by countries in the implementation phase of the BEPS Project, as well as the interaction of such measures with various domestic legal systems. Downloads Sample excerpt, including table of contents This book is part of the WU Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law – Tax Law and Policy Series. View other titles in the series Editor(s) Michael Lang, Jeffrey Owens, Pasquale Pistone, Alexander Rust, Josef Schuch and Claus Staringer are professors at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business). Assistant Editor(s) Sriram Govind, Andreas Langer and Christina Dimitropoulou are PhD candidates at the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business). Contributor(s) Kristiina Äimä, Muhammad Ashfaq Ahmed, Desiree Auer, Tomáš Balco, Rahul Batheja, B. Bawono Kristiaji, Jakob Bundgaard, Simon Busch, David Domínguez, David G. Duff, Marilena Ene, Stjepan Gadžo, Ricardo André Galendi Júnior, Malcolm Gammie, Cristián Garate, Elizabeth Gil García, Sriram Govind, Akiko Hamada, Sigrid Hemels, Peter Hongler, Tracy A. Kaye, Patrick Knörzer, Peter Koerver Schmidt, Svetislav V. Kostić, Jiří Kostohryz, Milada Kuceková, Andreas Langer, Krzysztof Lasiński-Sulecki, Na Li, Gaspar Lopes Dias V.S., Henri Lyyski, Jorge Martín López, Luis Maria Méndez, Clement Okello Migai, Marco Mosconi, A. Selçuk Özgenç Pasquale Pistone, Alice Pirlot, Ewa Prejs, Natalia Quiñones, Adrian Sawyer, Luís Eduardo Schoueri, Mirna Solange Screpante, Andrew Smith, C. John Taylor, Edoardo Traversa, Denny Vissaro, Martin Wenz, Björn Westberg, Felipe Yáñez, Priscilla Zamora, Lidija Živković, Yansheng Zhu, Nataša Žunić Kovačević.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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