MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400153424 · doi:10.1787/46db870b-en

The Role and Management of Quality in Competition Analysis

2013· report· en· W4400153424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD competition law and policy working papers. · 2013
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Quality (philosophy)BusinessBiologyEcologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The OECD Competition Committee discussed the role and measurement of quality in competition analysis in June 2013. This document contains an executive summary of that debate and the documents from the meeting: an analytical note by the OECD staff and written submissions: Australia, Canada, Chile, the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, United Kingdom, Ukraine, United States and BIAC. A note as well as a detailed summary of the discussion are also included.

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)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.167
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.167
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.019
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0230.016
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD competition law and policy working papers.Same topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207