MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013473227 · doi:10.1111/1468-2354.00119

Cost Manipulation Games in Oligopoly, With Costs of Manipulating

2001· article· en· W2013473227 on OpenAlexaff
Ngo Van Long, Antoine Soubeyran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Economic Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOligopolyMarginal costMicroeconomicsEconomicsOutcome (game theory)Redistribution (election)Ex-anteResource allocationResource (disambiguation)Marginal productSequential gameGame theoryMathematical economicsComputer scienceCournot competitionProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze a class of two‐stage games where rival firms incur real resource costs in manipulating their marginal costs, so as to influence the outcome of the game they want to play in stage two. Marginal costs may be manipulated by various means, such as redistribution of productive assets, choice of location, or creation of an internal input market. A general formulation of the game is provided, and several applications are analyzed. We show that the optimal allocation of resources within an oligopoly can be asymmetric, even for ex‐ante symmetric firms. This is an additional explanation of heterogeneity in oligopoly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Economic ReviewSame topicMerger and Competition AnalysisFrench-language works237,207