MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582385484 · doi:10.1111/nrm.12042

THE EFFECT OF MONOPSONY POWER ON PRORATIONING AND UNITIZATION REGULATION OF THE COMMON POOL

2014· article· en· W1582385484 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

VenueNatural Resource Modeling · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonopsonyEconomic rentEconomicsMicroeconomicsProduction (economics)Natural resource economicsIndustrial organization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For four decades beginning in the 1930s, the U.S. oil and gas industry was regulated by a quota‐supported price‐floor instrument known as prorationing. Most economists argue that unitization would have been a more efficient form of regulation. This paper studies how monopsony power held by integrated pipeline/refinery firms affects that conclusion. Absent regulation, the underproduction by monopsony dominates the overproduction from common‐property supply. Thus, unitization, which forces producers to internalize costs, causes output to be further restricted. In contrast, prorationing severs the price‐setting ability of the monopsonist, so can increase output to the first‐best. Under prorationing, at the first‐best output level, the marginal monopsony rents equal the Pigouvian output tax that solves the common‐property problem. Also discussed are the distribution of gains under prorationing and unitization as implemented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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