Treatment of Exclusionary Abuses under Article 82 of the EC Treaty: Comments on the European Commission's Guidance Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2008, the European Commission issued a Guidance paper setting out its enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 to abusive exclusionary conduct. In response, CEPS formed a Task Force of legal scholars, practicing attorneys and corporate counsel to debate and comment on this latest Guidance paper and to issue recommendations aimed at improving the Commission’s text and the interpretation of the rules it contains. Even if the Commission does not issue a revised version of the Guidance paper, the members of the Task Force hope that their comments will be useful to the Commission in its application of the principles set out in the Guidance paper and to national courts in their interpretation of the Guidance paper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.047 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".