MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240213214 · doi:10.22215/rera.v1i1.161

Effective Competition and EU Competition Law

2005· article· en· W4240213214 on OpenAlex
Tuna Başköy

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European and Russian Affairs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEU Law and Policy Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition lawCompetition (biology)Competition policyPoliticsEconomicsLaw and economicsDistribution (mathematics)Industrial organizationPolitical scienceEconomic systemPublic economicsEuropean unionMarket economyLawInternational tradeMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of workable or effective competition is at the centre of EU competition law and policy, as it strives to achieve and maintain it. Some scholars do not mention it at all. Those who refer to it either do not explain it in any way or explicate it very shortly. In fact, the concept is too important to be ignored totally or elucidated briefly. The objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the concept by focusing on the theory of workable or effective competition. It is argued that effective competition is the key for an in-depth study of the political economy (i.e. real policy goals, economic rationale behind individual competition rules, institutional requirements, and implications for distribution of wealth) of EU competition law and policy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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