MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903252406 · doi:10.29173/alr2509

Prudence, Stranded Assets, and the Regulation of Utilities: A Review of Alberta Utility Regulatory Principles in a Post-Stores Block Era

2018· review· en· W2903252406 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lou Cusano, David M. Wood, Evan Dickinson, Gino Bruni

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrudenceSupreme courtAppealEconomicsAsset (computer security)Investment (military)LegislatureLaw and economicsGovernment (linguistics)BusinessLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stores Block, a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada case, established that utilities are the sole owners of utility assets, thereby granting them the right to gain on the disposition of such assets. The case was game-changing, spawning a string of Alberta Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada, and regulatory body decisions. This article traces the progression of these decisions and examines their implications for property ownership principles, including utility asset dispositions, utility rate bases, the prudent investment test, and stranded assets. The authors ultimately argue that these interpretations of Stores Block have led to “deleterious effects” for regulated utilities in Alberta, and discuss resulting attempts at legislative intervention by the Government of Alberta.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207