Did the Canadian Newspaper Acquisitions Raise Prices for Consumers?∗
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 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".