MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109993321 · doi:10.1111/joie.12064

Finite Optimal Penalties for False Advertising

2014· article· en· W2109993321 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

VenueJournal of Industrial Economics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAuction Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerifiable secret sharingQuality (philosophy)Product (mathematics)MicroeconomicsPrivate information retrievalContrast (vision)SIGNAL (programming language)Order (exchange)Type (biology)EconomicsRegulatorAdvertisingBusinessComputer scienceMathematicsComputer securityArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I consider a setting in which firms have unverifiable private information about their type, which corresponds to their probable product quality; firms can expend a learning cost in order to observe their quality; and the regulator can enforce false advertising penalties contingent only on verifiable realized quality. I show that it may be socially optimal for high type firms to signal their type through ‘speculative claims,’ rather than to learn and signal their quality . This implies that socially optimal false advertising penalties are finite, in contrast to the literature's common assumption of arbitrarily high false advertising penalties, and that the regulator optimally tolerates the existence of some false claims in equilibrium.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.193 · 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