MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602442056 · doi:10.15173/esr.v12i2.458

Keeping the Lights On: Power Sector Reform in Latin America

2004· article· en· W2602442056 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Studies Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Economy, and Technology Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlackoutScrutinyLatin AmericansPower (physics)LiberalizationPoliticsEconomic historyPolitical sciencePolitical economyDevelopment economicsEconomyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On August 14, 2003, in a matter of minutes, the lights went out, affecting around fifty million people in the northeastern United States (allegedly most powerful nation on the planet), Ontario, and Quebec. This constituted the biggest blackout in North American history. Only a couple of weeks later, commuters in London (UK) were affected by a power outage in the underground. In September in Copenhagen and southern Sweden almost four million users were left in the dark. After alternative explanations were ruled out and the expected political game of passing the blaming around receded, many began attributing these all too common problems of brownouts and blackouts on systemic, underlying conditions. The processes of liberalization and privatization of the power sectors ended up under negative public scrutiny. This is the kind of time in which von-der-Fehr and Millan's book saw the light.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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