Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Airline Alliances: Justifying the Bureau’s Intervention, the Canadian Competition Bureau’s 2011 challenge of the proposed joint venture between Air Canada and United Continental Holdings is analysed from a Competition Law perspective, through the lens of the nuanced environment in which airlines operate in Canada. Despite the multitude of arguments supporting the pro-competitive effects of airline alliances, particularly with regards to airlines operating in the United States, Europe and Australia, this paper concludes that airline alliances are not necessarily pro-competitive within the Canadian context. Although airline alliances are theoretically well-aligned with the purposes of the Canadian Competition Act, the markets in which such alliances are permitted to operate must contain mechanisms to constrain the excessive use of market power. With current Canadian policies fostering protectionism, the Competition Bureau is arguably justified in taking a more aggressive approach with regards to airline alliances than its global peers.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".