MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171339420 · doi:10.1260/014459805775992690

Using Extreme Value Theory to Model Electricity Price Risk with an Application to the Alberta Power Market

2005· article· en· W2171339420 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Exploration & Exploitation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue at riskExtreme value theoryGeneralized Pareto distributionEconometricsEconomicsNormalityPortfolioMeasure (data warehouse)Modern portfolio theoryPortfolio optimizationExpected shortfallRisk measureGeneralized extreme value distributionFinancial economicsRisk managementMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value-at-risk (VaR) is a measure of the maximum potential change in value of a portfolio of financial assets with a given probability over a given time horizon. VaR has become a standard measure of market risk and a common practice is to compute VaR by assuming that changes in value of the portfolio are conditionally normally distributed. However, assets returns usually come from heavy-tailed distributions, so computing VaR under the assumption of conditional normality can be an important source of error. We illustrate in our application to competitive electric power prices in Alberta, Canada, that VaR estimates based on extreme value theory models, in particular the generalized Pareto distribution are, more accurate than those produced by alternative models such as normality or historical simulation.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.196 · 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