Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weekly retail gasoline prices in Windsor, Ontario, from 1989 to 1994 appear to respond faster to wholesale price increases than to decreases, but exhibit a cyclic pattern inconsistent with a common explanation of response asymmetry. I reconcile these observations through a model of price cycles. Prices on the downward portion of the cycle appear insensitive to costs, compared with price increases, supporting the theory that price decreases result from battles over market share. This pattern resembles a faster response to cost increases than to decreases, and the conclusion that asymmetry indicates a role for competition policy may be inappropriate. JEL Classification: L13, L71 Cycles des prix de détail et réponse asymétrique. Les prix de détail hebdomadaires de la gazoline à Windsor (Ont.) entre 1989 et 1994 semblent réagir plus vite aux accroissements qu’aux chutes des prix de gros, mais suivent un pattern cyclique qui ne semble pas consistant avec l’explication traditionnelle en termes de réponse asymétrique. L’auteur réconcilie ces observations à l’aide d’un modèle de cycle de prix. Les prix dans la portion descendante du cycle semblent insensibles aux variations de coûts, par comparaison avec les accroissements de prix, ce qui supporte la théorie que les chutes de prix résultent de luttes pour les parts de marché. Le pattern ressemble à celui déclenché par une réponse plus rapide aux augmentations qu’aux chutes de coûts, et la conclusion qui voudrait qu’on puisse attribuer le tout à l’asymétrie des réponses (et que donc une intervention de la politique de la concurrence s’impose) peut être inappropriée.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".