MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312214556 · doi:10.1111/joie.12310

Incentivized Mergers and Cost Efficiency: Evidence from the Electricity Distribution Industry*

2022· article· en· W4312214556 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)SubsidyIncentiveElectricityIndustrial organizationBusinessElectric power industryElectric power distributionControl reconfigurationEnvironmental economicsPublic economicsMicroeconomicsEconomicsFinanceMarket economyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an endogenous merger algorithm to evaluate the impact of government‐provided incentives on consolidation patterns for services such as electricity distributors, school boards, hospitals and municipalities. The algorithm replicates the observed industry reconfiguration, with calibrated parameters used to simulate consolidation patterns that would have resulted from policy incentives. We apply the method to the case of Ontario, where transfer tax reductions have been proposed to incentivize consolidation of electricity distributors. We find that the proposed incentive would have no impact on efficiency and consolidation, and even subsidies would still leave many more electricity distributors than desired by policy makers.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.171 · 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