MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480155855 · doi:10.1177/0003603x16657216

Merger Efficiencies in Canada

2016· article· en· W2480155855 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Antitrust Bulletin · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionCompetition lawMerger controlCommercial lawMerger guidelinesEconomicsCompetition (biology)Competition policyWedge (geometry)Law and economicsLawPolitical scienceChoice of lawPublic economicsMicroeconomicsCommissionMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In terms of solidifying the economic foundations of competition policy, Canadian merger law is much further advanced than merger law in any other jurisdiction. This article evaluates the developments in the Canadian law and draws both positive and negative lessons for integrating economic principles into merger law generally. The balancing weights test adopted in Canadian law for incorporating efficiencies into merger assessment has firm support in economics. But the implementation of this test has run into problems. A sharp wedge remains in Canada between the law and the economics of merger evaluation.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
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)0.0040.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.161 · 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