Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison the way of vertical restraints regulation in the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation is the subject to certain difficulties arising from their belonging to different types of legal system. The United States legal system belongs to the family of common law, while in the European Union and the Russian Federation operates a family of civil law. Historically, the countries that were colonies of Great Britain (the US, Canada, India, Australia) steel continue the tradition of the Anglo-Saxon legal system. The civil law system dominates in Continental Europe and, consequently, in those countries that were formerly colonies of France, Denmark, Germany, Spain and Portugal. Separately to this list should include Russia and Japan. Common and civil law systems differ significantly. The common law system is characterized by a decisive role of precedents. This fact explains that in the United States the judge acts as arbiter. In contrast, the European Union civil law concept implies the existence of detailed system of rules and principles, clearly defining the regulation process for every specific area of law enforcement. Thus, every legal system determines its own peculiarities practice of vertical restraints regulation. Considering the differences of vertical restraints regulation the attention should paid not only the type of the country legal system, but also the interaction between the economic theory and the antitrust law, because the theoretical analysis played a crucial role in the regulation norms evolution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".