MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128644717 · doi:10.26180/3823461.v1

A research guide to international tax: an Australian perspective

2016· article· W7128644717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonash University · 2016
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Tax reformCousinTax creditInternational taxationTax lawIncome tax

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International tax in Australia has largely been the poor cousin to Australian domestic taxation issues. This has changed recently, first, with the review of Australia's international tax arrangements and second with the enactment of the following Acts: New International Tax Arrangements Act 2004 (Cth). New International Tax Arrangements (Participation Exemption and Other Measures) Act 2004 (Cth). New International Tax Arrangements (Managed Funds and Other Measures) Act 2005 (Cth). New International Tax Arrangements (Foreign-Owned Branches and Other Measures) Act 2005 (Cth). In the light of these changes, it is timely to consider how one might go about researching international tax materials, using traditional library resources, as well as online resources, including the Internet. Some of the sources used in the compilation of this guide include the online catalogues of Curtin University of Technology, the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney, the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, and York University, Canada. Most of the publications listed here were published in the past fifteen years. 9(1): 82-118.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.018

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonash UniversitySame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207