MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547302072 · doi:10.3138/ccar.v3i1.81

Imperfect Information and Conspiracy Class Actions

2006· article· en· W1547302072 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Class Action Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass actionImperfectPerfect informationClass (philosophy)Action (physics)Frame (networking)Law and economicsInformation asymmetryPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsComputer scienceMathematical economicsMicroeconomicsArtificial intelligencePhilosophyAlgorithmLinguisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imperfect information problems have important effects in privately initiated class action litigation over price-fixing conspiracies. In this comment on work by Margaret Sanderson and Michael Trebilcock, and David Rosenberg and James Sullivan, the author uses imperfect information as the frame of analysis to discuss proposed solutions to problems associated with class action litigation about conspiracy. Fully appreciating the information structure of class actions is essential to understanding current practice, particularly the importance of “follow-on” actions, and understanding the implications of reform to current regimes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · 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