MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104690181 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2008.920729

Electricity Markets Cleared by Merit Order—Part II: Strategic Offers and Market Power

2008· article· en· W2104690181 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClearanceElectricity marketProfit (economics)Market powerEconomicsLinear programmingElectric power systemOrder (exchange)ElectricityInteger programmingNash equilibriumIdentification (biology)Scheme (mathematics)Computer scienceMicroeconomicsMathematical optimizationOperations researchPower (physics)MathematicsEngineeringMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an electricity market cleared by a merit-order economic dispatch we make use of the mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) scheme derived in Part I to find the market outcomes supported by a pure strategy Nash equilibria (NE). From these NE, we identify offer strategies in terms of gaming or not gaming that best meet the risk/benefit expectations of the participating Gencos. To do this, a number of measures of potential profit gain and loss are developed that quantify the notion of risk/benefit under the possible multiple NE. The NE identification scheme is tested on several systems of up to 30 generating units, each with four incremental cost blocks, also showing how market power is influenced by the number and size of the competing Gencos as well as by the imposed price cap.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.183
Teacher spread0.174 · 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