Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is twofold: on the one hand, to evaluate the incidence of compliance programs in the prevention of the cartels; and, on the other, to evaluate if said programs have been effectively integrated into the Spanish legal system. To that end, in the first part of this paper we will analyse the concept of cartel and its precedents. Furthermore, we will study how these behaviours are punishable according to our legislation and the tool that helps to detect them: the leniency program. The paper will then focus on the compliance programs, exploring their definition and the benefits they provide in terms of preventing cartels. In addition, we will discuss how these programs might be implemented effectively. Finally, there will be a comparative study between various countries on the use of compliance programs in matters of competition law -Chile, United States, Canada, United Kingdom and France- in order to establish a comparison with the current situation in Spain. The main result of the present study is that in Spain there is currently not much regulation with respect to competition compliance programs. As for the other countries, it has been found that this kind of regulation is much more developed, and that the competition authorities, contrary to their Spanish counterpart, have compiled the guidelines to be followed by organizations wishing to comply with the competition regulations. The work done in Chile is particularly noteworthy. After our investigation, we can conclude that in Spain the problem does not only lie with the companies, many of which have not yet implemented compliance programs, but also with the competition authorities, which are still in the initial stage of studying how the fields of compliance and competition law can be aligned.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".