MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160650630 · doi:10.1111/1468-0106.12084

Corruption in Public Procurement Market

2014· article· en· W2160650630 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

VenuePacific Economic Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBiddingProcurementQuality (philosophy)Product (mathematics)BusinessProduct marketIndustrial organizationRanking (information retrieval)Language changeMarket powerEconomicsFinanceMicroeconomicsMarketingMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper presents a model of public procurement in which the contracting officer is corrupt and extracts bribes from the bidding firms. The firms submit multidimensional bids, which consist of the quality and the price of the project that they propose to realize. The firms differ in their costs of realizing the project at a given quality, and these costs are private information. The contracting official, in exchange for a bribe, abuses the power of his or her public office by distorting the quality ranking of the bids and by giving the favoured firm an opportunity to readjust its bid to undercut its rivals. Our analysis suggests that when the firms serve only the internal market, the public project is realized at low quality and inflated prices. However, when the firms are also allowed to sell the product they develop for the internal market in a foreign market, the auction is ex post efficient.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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)0.0100.003

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.251 · 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