MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954904432 · doi:10.1093/jaenfo/jnz017

Procedural implications of market definition in platform cases

2019· article· en· W2954904432 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Antitrust Enforcement · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDiverse Legal and Medical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket definitionMarket powerIndustrial organizationRelevant marketBusinessEconomicsMarket structureMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The central and often neglected problem in the evaluation of competitive effects in platform cases is that the boundaries of the relevant market, usually simply a tool for the analysis of market power, can give raise to substantially different procedural routes depending on whether the antitrust market comprises the platform as a whole or just one side. Based on a comparative assessment across jurisdictions, the article argues that the excessive importance of the relevant market creates a potential mismatch between the economic consequences and doctrinal implications stemming from market definition in multi-sided platform cases. The article concludes that a more desirable framework for evaluating competitive effects should remain independent from the way market definition is carried out.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.206 · 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