Practice of the Appeal Board of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (Russia) (Scientific review of the most significant cases examined in the fourth quarter of 2019)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ratio of regional antimonopoly`s decisions appealed under collegial body of the Federal antimonopoly service related to the establishment of the facts of the conclusion of prohibited competition-restricting agreements exceeds the part of the other decisions. In most cases, this is related to the issues of proving the arrangement and implementation of competition-restricting agreement, because not always certain circumstances can clearly indicate the fact of conclusion of such agreement. The most interesting are the cases of «bid rigging» cartels, which are prohibited by paragraph 2 of the part 1 of article 11 of the Federal law "On protection of competition" (hereinafter — the Law on protection of competition). Establishing that competitionrestricting agreements in each case, all collected in the case on violation of Antimonopoly legislation of the evidence to be assessed, without which it is impossible to make an informed decision on the case, and defendants in cases usually do not agree with the competition authority of certain evidence as proof of anti-competitive agreements.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it