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
Abstract The division of shared tax bases between national and sub-national governments is a perennial source of conflict in federal nations. This Article compares historical trajectories in the four oldest constitutional federations—Switzerland, the United States, Canada, and Australia—to identify the causes, mechanics, and implications of “vertical tax competition,” the competitive process in which governments at one level attempt to increase their revenue at the expense of governments at a higher or lower level. The Article’s animating observation is that vertical tax competition has a centralizing tendency: national governments are likely to outcompete sub-national governments for revenue over the long run. This competitive advantage has a number of attractive economic implications, but it creates an ongoing risk for subnational autonomy and, more generally, the “balance” within federalism. This Article identifies the causes of this national advantage; the conditions under which subnational governments can limit it; a variety of legal responses that can be used to prevent extreme outcomes; and the implications for the governance of federalism. It also shows how these competitive dynamics and legal responses can help explain surprising differences between federal nations, including the relative fiscal power of national and subnational governments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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