MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W137355560

Consolidation in container liner shipping - Merger control aspects

2006· article· en· W137355560 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fabrizia Benini, Richard Gadas, Gerald Miersch

Bibliographic record

VenueCompetition policy newsletter · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)BusinessCommissionDatabase transactionGermanMergers and acquisitionsFinanceCommerceInternational tradeOperations managementEconomyEconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005, three acquisitions of container liner ship­ ping companies were notified to the European Commission. The consolidation wave started with the public bid of the Danish company A.P. Moller Maersk (Maersk) for the Dutch­British shipping company Royal P&O Nedlloyd (PONL). Prior to the acquisition, Maersk was the leading global player, and by incorporating PONL, the fourth largest carrier in the world, it secured that posi­ tion. Some months later, the German tourism and logistics company TUI with its shipping subsidi­ ary Hapag­Lloyd presented a public offer for the Canadian shipping company CP Ships. The bid resulted in the creation of the fifth largest player in the world in terms of capacity. Finally, the French shipping company CMA CGM acquired the French company Delmas, which although relatively small globally, has important activities in the Mediterra­ nean and Africa. Following the transaction, CMA CGM became the third largest global player. The European Commission approved all three trans­ actions (1). However the acquisitions of PONL and CP Ships were subject to conditions.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompetition policy newsletterSame topicLaw, logistics, and international tradeFrench-language works237,207