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 OpenAlexaffabout
W. David Walls, Wei Zhang

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.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Exploration & ExploitationSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207