MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051556306 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2012.2235469

Analysis of the Iberian Power Forward Price Formation

2013· article· en· W2051556306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Álvaro Capitán Herráiz, Carlos Rodríguez Monroy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractSpot contractForward contractForward marketCommon value auctionMaturity (psychological)Quarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsNormal backwardationSpot marketFinancial economicsFutures marketDerivatives marketBusinessMicroeconomicsElectricityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The price formation of the Iberian Energy Derivatives Market—the power futures market—starting in July 2006, is assessed until November 2011, through the evolution of the difference between forward and spot prices in the delivery period (“ex-post forward risk premium”) and the comparison with the forward generation costs from natural gas (“clean spark spread”). The premium tends to be positive in all existing mechanisms (futures, Over-the-Counter and auctions for catering part of the last resort supplies). Since year 2011, the values are smaller due to regulatorily recognized prices for coal power plants. The power futures are strongly correlated with European gas prices. The spreads built with prompt contracts tend also to be positive. The biggest ones are for the month contract, followed by the quarter contract and then by the year contract. Therefore, gas fired generation companies can maximize profits trading with contracts of shorter maturity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207