MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407762898 · doi:10.1111/caje.70001

Impact of income position information on perceived tax burden and preference for redistribution: An online survey

2025· article· en· W4407762898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eiji Yamamura

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsRedistribution (election)PreferencePosition (finance)Public economicsBusinessEconomicsDemographic economicsMicroeconomicsPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many experimental studies have assessed the relationship between the provision of information on relative income and redistribution preferences. However, the influence of information on perceived tax burden, which is considered a subjective cost of redistribution, has not been examined. This study investigates how individuals' relative income positions influence their income redistribution preferences and individual perceptions of the income tax burden. This study was conducted using a customized online survey. First, I asked respondents about their perceived income position in their country, redistribution preference and perceived tax burden. In the follow‐up survey, I provided the treatment group with information on their true income positions based on the same questions as in the first survey. However, for the control group, I did not disclose their true income positions but asked them the same questions. The key findings suggest that, after learning their real income positions: (i) individuals who overestimated their income positions perceived their tax burden as higher, (ii) individuals' redistribution preferences had hardly changed and (iii) reciprocal individuals (who accounted for the largest proportion) perceived their tax burden as lower and were less likely to prefer redistribution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.117 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207