MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098280224

Did the Canadian Newspaper Acquisitions Raise Prices for Consumers?∗

2007· article· en· W7098280224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperConsolidation (business)Circulation (fluid dynamics)GlobeMergers and acquisitionsEconomies of scaleCriticism
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the late 1990s, the Canadian newspaper industry underwent rapid consolidation with a few conglomerates controlling the vast ma-jority of daily papers. Over a 4 year period, about three-fourths of Canada’s daily newspapers changed ownership. While the issue re-ceived considerable attention and criticism at the time, the concerns were mostly about diversity of opinion. We have not found any study examining the straightforward economic implications of such a large scale realignment in this important industry. We examine the effect of this consolidation on observable variables relating to consumer welfare. Specifically, we analyze prices for both circulation and advertising, as well as study the extent to which con-centration increased using county level circulation data. Our results do not support the notion that greater concentration led to the abuse of market power in the form of higher prices. In fact, our results suggest that newspapers with changed ownership and those in the dominant chains had either lower price increases or greater price declines after the merger, compared with the other papers. ∗We would like to thank Aviv Nevo and Shane Greenstein for helpful comments and Howard Hirshhorn for providing circulation data for the Globe and Mail. We are especially grateful to Rob Porter for providing the initial idea for this project.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207