MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385075514 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3898

How Antitrust Failed Workers by Eric A. Posner

2023· article· en· W4385075514 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maria Arabella M. Robles

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonopolizationMarket powerCompetition (biology)Product marketCompetition policyEconomicsContext (archaeology)Product (mathematics)Power (physics)Market economyMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IN RECENT YEARS, GROWING ECONOMIC INEQUALITY and anxieties about market power, monopolization, and other such concerns have rejuvenated competition and antitrust law and policy. It is well known that antitrust enhances competition by addressing issues of monopolization, price-fixing arrangements, and cartels, among other anticompetitive practices in markets. This allows dynamic competition to flourish in markets and ensures that consumers are provided with competitive prices and product choices. Although the negative impacts of market concentration are frequently recognized in the context of product markets, its impact on labour markets and the workers therein have largely been unexplored until recently. Professor Eric A. Posner’s How Antitrust Failed Workers attempts to fill this gap in the scholarship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicMerger and Competition AnalysisFrench-language works237,207