MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W608663919

The evaluation of evidence and its judicial review in competition cases

2011· book· en· W608663919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claus‐Dieter Ehlermann, Mel Marquis

Bibliographic record

VenueHart eBooks · 2011
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition lawStandard of reviewCompetition (biology)EnforcementJudicial reviewPolitical scienceEuropean unionCommissionEuropean commissionContext (archaeology)Law and economicsLawEconomicsInternational tradeHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction - Rules That Govern Rules: Evidence, Proof and Judicial Control in Competition Cases Mel Marquis Introduction to the Workshop - Competition enforcement and judicial review in Europe Presentations Written contributions Bruno Lasserre, The European Competition System in Context: Matching Old Constitutional Principles and New Policy Challenges Heike Schweitzer, The European Competition Law Enforcement System and the Evolution of Judicial Panel I The European Commission: Standard of Proof, burden of proof and evaluation of evidence in antitrust and merger cases Panel II The European Courts: Standard of proof, burden of proof, standards of review and evaluation of evidence antitrust and merger cases Written contributions to Panels I and II I Per Hellstroem, A Uniform Standard of Proof in EU Competition Proceedings II Philip Lowe, Taking Sound Decisions on the Basis of Available Evidence III Luis Ortiz Blanco, Standards of Proof and Personal Conviction in EU Antitrust and Merger Control Procedures IV James Venit, Human All Too Human: The Gathering and Assessment of Evidence and the Appropriate Standard of Proof and Judicial in Commission Enforcement Proceedings Applying Articles 81 and 82 V Nicholas Forwood, The Commission's More Economic Approach - Implications for the Role of the EU Courts, the Treatment of Economic Evidence and the Scope of Judicial VI Aindrias O Caoimh, Standard of Proof, Burden of Proof, Standards of and Evaluation of Evidence in Antitrust and Merger Cases: Perspective of Court of Justice of the European Union VII Nils Wahl, Standard of - Comprehensive or Limited? VIII Eric Gippini-Fournier, The Elusive Standard of Proof in EU Competition Cases IX Fernando Castillo de la Torre, Evidence, Proof and Judicial in Cartel Cases X Ian Forrester, A Bush in Need of Pruning: the Luxuriant Growth of Light Judicial Review XI John Ratliff, Judicial in EC competition cases before the European Courts: Avoiding double renvoi XII Justin Coombs and Jorge Padilla, The Use of Economic Evidence before the Courts of the European Union Panel III National competition authorities: standard of proof, burden of proof and evaluation of evidence in antitrust and merger cases Written contributions to Panel III I Alberto Heimler, The Legal Significance of Economic Evidence in Antitrust Cases: Some Comments Based on the Italian Experience II Pieter Kalbfleisch, Standard of Proof, Burden of Proof and Evaluation of Evidence in Antitrust and Merger Cases: A Perspective of the Netherlands Competition Authority III Jacques Steenbergen, Rules of Evidence in Competition Cases: An NCA Perspective IV J. Thomas Rosch, Observations on Evidentiary Issues in Antitrust Cases V Rafael Allendesalazar and Paloma Martinez Lage Evidence Gathered through Leniency: From the Prisoner's Dilemma to a Race to the Bottom VI Mario Siragusa, Antitrust and Merger Cases in Italy: Standard of Proof, Burden of Proof and Evaluation of Evidence VII James Rill and Jaimee Lederman, Evidence in Judicial of U.S. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice Merger Cases VIII Dennis Carlton, How Should Economic Evidence be Presented and Evaluated? Panel IV National courts in major jurisdictions: Standard of proof, burden of proof, standards of review and evaluation of evidence in antitrust and merger cases Written contributions to Panel IV I Vaughn Walker, Evidence in Competition Cases: An American Trial Judge's Perspective II Michael Boudin, Evidence and the Formulation of U.S. Antitrust Law III Kelyn Bacon, Standard of Proof, Standards of and Evaluation of Evidence in UK Antitrust and Merger Cases IV Jochen Burrichter and Hans Logemann, Evaluation of Evidence in National Courts: Reflections from the German Perspective V Calvin Goldman, Robert Kwinter, Navin Joneja and Chad Leddy, A Canadian Perspective on the Evaluation of Evidence in Antitrust and Merger Cases in the Context of Recent Changes to Canada's Competition Law VI Barry Hawk and James Keyte, Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: How the U.S. Courts Analyze Antitrust Evidence

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.400
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.018 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHart eBooksSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207