Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile app commissions paid by app developers to a monopolist device maker/app store operator are examined. Three results are demonstrated. First, unregulated app commissions are set at a level that maximises consumer surplus. Second, eliminating app commissions will likely lead to higher device prices. Third, requiring a menu of options for consumers as to how device makers receive subsidies from app developers constrains app commissions in a way that provides a more equal balance between consumer versus app developer interests. • Consumer Surplus Maximisation: The paper argues that in a monopoly setting, the app commission rate set by the device maker will be the rate that maximises consumer surplus, not total welfare. By maximising consumer surplus from apps, the device maker can charge a higher price for the device itself, thus maximising its own profits. • Zero Commission Leads to Higher Device Prices: The paper demonstrates that eliminating app store commissions will lead to higher quality-adjusted device prices if the profit an app developer makes from a single consumer is greater than the surplus that consumer receives from that app. • Required Menu as a Regulatory Mechanism: The paper proposes a regulatory mechanism requiring device makers to offer consumers a menu of options: paying standard prices for the device and apps with a commission, or paying a premium for the device to get discounted app prices.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it