Rhetoric and reality in the merger standards of the United States, Canada, and the European Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Discussion of competition policy has increased at the World Trade Organization. See Peter Holmes, Trade and Competition in the New WTO, in Trade Liberalization, Competition and the WTO (Chris Milner & Robert Read eds., 2000). Organized competition policy advice from the World Bank also has increased. Edward T. Swaine, Against Principled Antitrust, 43 Va. J. Int'l L. 959, 997 n.152 (2003) (reporting and questioning the wisdom of World Bank conditioning loans upon recipient adopting antitrust measures). The International Competition Network was launched in 2001. See James F. Rill, International Competition Network: The Private Sector Perspective, Antitrust, Fall 2002, at 37. In addition to providing leadership in some of these initiatives, the United States has struck bilateral antitrust cooperation agreements with the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, and Japan. See Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the European Communities on the Application of Positive Comity Principles in the Enforcement of Their Competition Laws (1998), reprinted in 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) f 13,504A; Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Commission of the European Communities Regarding the Application of Their Competition Laws (1991), reprinted in 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) % 13,504. Agreements between the United States and Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Japan, and Mexico can be found in 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ffl 13,502-13,509. Antitrust cooperation provisions were also included in the North American Free Trade Agreement. North American Free Trade Agreement (1994), at 15, reprinted in 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) f 13,505. Additional indications of cooperative stances on antitrust matters may be found in recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court allowing federal courts to order discovery in aid of antitrust complainants before the European Commission, Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 124 S. Ct. 2466 (2004), and denying Sherman Act application to behavior whose anticompetitive effects occurred exclusively abroad, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 124 S. Ct. 2359 (2004).
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".