MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024975422 · doi:10.3905/jsf.2001.320231

High Wire Act

2001· article· en· W2024975422 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.

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œjournal of structured finance · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)BusinessNeutralityBattleProfit (economics)Industrial organizationEconomicsFinanceTelecommunicationsComputer scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transmission constitutes just 10% of the assets of the integrated U.S. utilities, but compared to generation and distribution, has received a disproportionately small share of financial support, and until quite recently, management attention. A major challenge for the future will be to ensure that transmission investments are sufficient to support the anticipated growth in both wholesale and retail sales. In this article, the authors evaluate three potential future scenarios for transmission assets, with a transition between them possible over time. Broadly speaking, those scenarios are regulation-based transmission rates, market-based transmission rates, and distributed generation-based transmission. Today, there is a strong current running in favor of for-profit activity in the transmission sector, but there may be continuing skepticism that commercial transmission offers genuine competitive neutrality. Regulatory attitudes will shape what the sector is allowed to become, and winning the regulatory battle may be one of the most significant aspects of achieving corporate change in transmission.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.188
Teacher spread0.179 · 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