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 OpenAlexaff
Ebrahim Hasan, F.D. Galiana

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.

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)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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

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

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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