Bibliography of Tax Articles in High Prestige Non-Specialized Law Journals: A Comparison of Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States 1954-2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As much or more than other legal subspecialties, tax laws touch on all business, and most personal, transactions.As a result of this broad application, tax lawyers often work closely with other attorneys, accountants and business professionals.The same is not true for how we write about tax laws, however.In general, articles or stories about tax law are contained in specialized journals and read exclusively by tax professionals.' Further, because tax laws tend to be jurisdiction specific, even tax specialists rarely read about tax statutes and controversies in other countries.This bibliography grows from work on the Oxford Handbook on the Common Law.The handbook is meant to help academics understand the nature of scholarly inquiry in a broad range of legal subspecialties.To that end, I focused on the academic articles that broke out of the specialized journals and reached out to a broader audience.This bibliography is a result of that work.It charts the tax articles that reached mainstream legal scholars in the last fifty years.The bibliography does this by focusing on the high prestige academic publications that attract attention across legal subspecialties.Just as certain recording artists "cross over" from one genre to another and are therefore exposed to a larger audience, articles in these publications have more chance of being read by legal academics from a variety of disciplines than their brethren published in specialized journals.Accordingly, these articles represent what non tax legal academics know as tax scholarship.This bibliography collects the last fifty years of "cross over" tax scholarship in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.Thus, it reveals what non tax specialists might read in tax law across national boundaries.As a result, the bibliography is a useful first step for anyone wishing to do comparative, as well as national, research.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".