Features of Corporate Liability for Violation of Competition Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of the study is determined by the need to establish corporate responsibility for breach of legislation. In this regard, this paper is aimed at identifying features of competition and corporate responsibility for breach of competition law. Particular attention is drawn to the case when corporations become monopolists and, in fact, dictate market rules. Consideration of the development aspect of competition law suggests that it largely limits the growth of corporate business and forces corporations to formulate strategies for splitting the business, thereby determining the conduct of business. In the modern world, where business is in many respects globalised, such measures can lead to a decrease in market indicators and form a dependence on the operations of certain corporations in the local market. The leading method to the study of this issue is the modelling method, which allows to consider this problem as a targeted and organised procedure related to the improvement and application of competition law, as well as the protection and development of competition. The novelty of the study lies in the possibility of limiting the activities of a corporation in a market that is occupied by it and where there is no practical competition. The authors consider the mechanism of self-regulation as a source of domestic competition law. The paper determines that self-regulation processes are also subject to state supervision and thus corporate self-regulation becomes an aspect of the regulation of competition enforcement by the state at large. The practical significance of the study is determined by the structural feature of the corporation as a quasi-state mechanism and the regulation of external relations between the state and corporations as tax residents on this basis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".