MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990145954 · doi:10.1002/mde.1465

Merging with a buyer group member

2009· article· en· W1990145954 on OpenAlexaff
Can Erutku, Patrick de Lamirande

Bibliographic record

VenueManagerial and Decision Economics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOligopolyBusinessMicroeconomicsIndustrial organizationWelfareGroup (periodic table)Market shareEconomicsMarketingMarket economyCournot competition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine a merger between a national retailer and a local retailer who is a member of a buyer group. While the traditional literature on mergers assumes an oligopolistic industry (where the merger takes place) supplied by a perfectly competitive one, we assume here that retailers obtain their input from a supplier that can offer quantity discounts. In this setting, a merger can be profitable for insiders (solving the merger paradox) and can also be more profitable for insiders than for outsiders (solving the free‐riding problem). This result holds even if the merged firm ends‐up with a small share of the market. However, welfare decreases post‐merger. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagerial and Decision EconomicsSame topicMerger and Competition AnalysisFrench-language works237,207