MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152585623 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2003.810676

Reconciling social welfare, agent profits, and consumer payments in electricity pools

2003· article· en· W2152585623 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 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroeconomicsEconomicsRevenueElectricityProfit (economics)Electricity marketMarginal costMarginal profitPaymentTransfer paymentScheduleSocial WelfareWelfareEngineeringMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under a common condition called profit suboptimality, market equilibrium cannot be reached in electricity pools; in other words, no system marginal price exists for which the profit-driven independent generators would self-schedule to levels that exactly meet the demand. On the other hand, although a centrally imposed generation schedule satisfies power balance, it may force some agents to operate at a profit below what they could achieve under self-scheduling. This paper examines these incompatible goals and proposes a conflict resolution scheme based on the notion of generalized uplift functions. These functions are defined such that they: (i) change the offered generation cost characteristics so as to increase the system marginal price, thus forcing the consumers to compensate the generators for part of their combined loss of profit; (ii) execute an equitable transfer of revenues among the generators so that these also participate in any loss of profit compensation; (iii) ensure market equilibrium at the centralized minimum cost solution; and (iv) ensure that the net sum of the uplifts adds up to zero.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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