Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each search term put into a search engine produces a separate set of results.Correspondingly, each of the sets of ads displayed alongside these results is priced using a separate auction.There is growing debate whether this marketing strategy merely makes advertising more informative, or whether using context to price also effectively price discriminates.To inform this debate, we examine advertising prices paid by lawyers for 174 Google search terms in 195 locations and exploit a natural experiment in "ambulance-chaser" regulations across states.Where state laws impose limits on lawyers' contingency fees limits, the relative price of advertising is $2.27 lower.This suggests that context-based pricing allows prices to reflect heterogeneity in the profitability of customer leads.When lawyers cannot contact a client by mail, the relative price per ad click is $0.93 higher.This suggests that context-based pricing allows prices to reflect heterogeneity in advertisers' other advertising options, even within a given local market.This last result emphasizes that search engine's pricing clout depends on the extent of competition, both online and offline.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".