MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400153023 · doi:10.1787/78c4eb25-en

Procedural Fairness: Issues in Civil and Administrative Enforcement Proceedings 

2011· report· en· W4400153023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD competition law and policy working papers. · 2011
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementAdministrative lawPublic administrationPolitical scienceBusinessLaw and economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The OECD Competition Committee debated procedural fairness and transparency issues in civil and administrative enforcement proceedings in February and June 2010. This document includes an executive summary of that debate, two issues paper by the OECD Secretariat, and two aide-memoires of the discussions as well as country contributions from: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, the United States, and BIAC.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD competition law and policy working papers.Same topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207