Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laws that attack monopoly have a long history, and even existed in the Roman empire (Braithwaite and Drahos, 2000: 185) but the story of a modern competition policy, executed with vigour, begins in the 1880s in North America when Canada and at least ten American states passed antitrust laws. Very little of the rest of the world was affected by this until quite late in the 20th century. Most of the competition authorities in the world have been created since 1990. There were barely 20 in the 1980s; today there are more than 90.1 More importantly, the vigour with which competition has been enforced and monopoly attacked has grown decisively in all the developed economies. Part of this has been professional deregulation at the behest of a globalising competition policy for the professions underwritten by the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services. These global and national policy shifts have effected important change. Cartels still exist, monopolies still dominate markets, but mostly price competition is more vigorous than in previous centuries. The result is that management cannot afford to be complacent. If managers are not aggressive at creating a demand for what they sell, more aggressive managers in competing firms put them out of business. This requires progressively more efficient production of the goods people want.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".