MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400153294 · doi:10.1787/e0bd0d3d-en

Economic Evidence in Merger Analysis

2012· report· en· W4400153294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD competition law and policy working papers. · 2012
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsEconomic geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The OECD Competition Committee debated economic evidence in merger analysis in February 2011. This document includes an executive summary of that debate and the documents from the meeting: a background note by the OECD and written submissions: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Türkiye, United Kingdom, United States, the European Union, and BIAC as well as an aide-memoire of the discussion.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD competition law and policy working papers.Same topicMerger and Competition AnalysisFrench-language works237,207