The Ottawa senators' lobby for comprehensive tax relief : a somewhat (but only somewhat) principled appeal to the notion of tax fairness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa Senators' lobby for comprehensive tax relief in favour of Canadian NHL teams towards the end of the 1990's is commendable. The argument that the Ottawa Senators hockey team is unfairly taxed in comparison to other Canadian businesses rejects reliance upon familiar economic impact studies of dubious validity, and is almost undeniably true in respect of property taxes. The argument is also colourable with respect to tax incentives which are given to businesses with links to Canadian culture and heritage, but are denied to professional hockey. Ultimately, however, the absence of any need to encourage Canadian participation in hockey, the obvious capture of any benefits by star players unwilling to participate in the structuring of an assistance programme, and the extraordinary public appetite for the NHL in Canada, distinguish hockey from those comparable businesses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".