MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536700515 · doi:10.1109/pes.2005.1489582

An overview of the operation of Ontario's electricity market

2005· article· en· W1536700515 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2005 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricity marketElectricityBusinessEnergy marketIndustrial organizationEnvironmental economicsEconomicsEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ontario electricity market, which opened on May 1, 2002, consists of physical markets for energy and operating reserves as well as a financial market for transmission rights, administered by the independent electricity market operator (IMO). Bids for energy and operating reserves from inside Ontario are settled based on a uniform pricing mechanism; however, import/export of electricity and applicable operating reserves through 12 intertie zones from/to New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Manitoba and Quebec control areas are priced differently. Energy and operating reserves markets are designed based on two time-frames, pre-dispatch and real-time, as well as two optimization procedures, unconstrained and constrained. Financial transmission rights are auctioned for short-term (one month) and long-term (one year), and provide a limited risk-hedging mechanism for holders. In this paper an overview of the market structure, basic features and the operational aspects of the Ontario market is discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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