MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946963752 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3355

Restoring Consumer Sovereignty: How Markets Manipulate Us and What the Law Can Do About It, by Adrian Kuenzler

2018· article· en· W2946963752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. E. Drexel Godfrey

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyLawCompetition lawCompetition (biology)SovereigntyWork (physics)Position (finance)Consumption (sociology)Commercial lawPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsEngineeringSocial scienceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restoring Consumer Sovereignty, by Adrian Kuenzler, is a rich text spanning antitrust, intellectual property (“IP”), and consumer law. Kuenzler, an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Zurich, is in an authoritative position to comment on the law’s role in stimulating new economic growth, drawing on his own insights from the behavioural sciences. He attributes the preparation of this book to his studies at Zurich University School of Law, his writing on the history of European Competition Law at the European University Institute in Florence, and his time at Yale Law School. In addition to his book, he has contributed other work to the antitrust, intellectual property, and consumer law fields, such as his article, “Promoting Access over Ownership: Realigning Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law to Usher in an Era of Collaborative Consumption.” Parts of chapters two, three, and four of the book also appear in the article, “Dilution Law, Vertical Agreements, and the Construction of Consumption.”

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207