Informational Efficiency and Interchange Transactions in Alberta’s Electricity Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the informational efficiency of the Alberta electricity market and also the issue of whether interchange transactions (power flows between markets) are becoming increasingly significant factors in electric power markets. In doing so, we use hourly data for all hours, peak hours, and off-peak hours over the period from January 1st, 1999 to July 31st, 2005. In testing the efficiency of the Alberta power market, we use a statistical physics approach - namely the ‘detrending moving average (DMA)’ technique, introduced by Alessio et al. (2002) and further developed by Carbone et al. (2004a, 2004b), and recently applied to energy futures markets by Serletis and Rosenberg (2007). In analyzing the relationship between power imports and exports and pool prices, we assess whether regulatory changes have modified the causal relationship between import/export volumes and the pool price. According to our results, the electricity market in Alberta is highly inefficient and cross-border trade of electricity between Alberta and neighbouring jurisdictions helps predict the price dynamics in Alberta’s electricity market.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".