MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569162955 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9910

Big-Data Mechanisms and Energy-Policy Design

2016· article· en· W2569162955 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBig Data Technologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Mechanism designIncentiveBig dataStakeholderComputer scienceTask (project management)Mechanism (biology)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessEconomicsMicroeconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A confluence of technical, economic and political forces are revolutionizing the energy sector. Policy-makers, who decide on incentives and penalties for possible courses of actions, play a critical role in determining which outcomes arise. However, designing appropriate energy policies is a complex and challenging task. Our vision is to provide tools and methodologies for policy makers so that they can leverage the power of big data to make evidence-based decisions. In this paper we present an approach we call big-data mechanism design which combines a mechanism design framework with stakeholder surveys and data to allow policy-makers to gauge the costs and benefits of potential policy decisions.We illustrate the effectiveness of this approach in a concrete application domain: the peaksaver PLUS program in Ontario, Canada.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.002
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 head0.566
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.166 · 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