MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541063815

The Definition of Payment Service Relevant Market Under the Perspective of Antimonopoly

2015· article· en· W1541063815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayment service providerPaymentBusinessPayment orderScope (computer science)Service (business)Monopolistic competitionService providerMarketingIndustrial organizationFinanceEconomicsMonopolyMarket economyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the technological progress and development of payment requirements, payment services become more diversified. At present, China has basically established a multi-level payment service market, which has broken the monopolistic situation of banking payment services, gradually intensified competitions, and brought about challenges to antitrust enforcement agencies. In the face of payment service homogeneity, user lock-in effect and characteristics of bilateral market, the traditional definition of relevant market has been weakened and restricted. This article explores new paths to properly define payment service relevant market: in accordance with the business scope approved by financial supervision departments, we should reasonably define payment service market based on payment scale; meanwhile, pay attention to investigate payment service providers and rationally define the competitive market scope from a technical research and developmental perspective.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207