MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121747613

Power Sharing: Developing Inter-Provincial Electricity Trade

2010· article· en· W3121747613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricityHydroelectricityMonopolyElectricity marketCarrElectricity retailingBusinessElectricity generationGovernment (linguistics)Diversity (politics)EconomicsPower (physics)Market economyPolitical scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada needs a “Made-in-Canada” approach to electricity transmission that better exploits the benefits of east-west power trading. In this study, the author explains how to overcome the impediments to electricity trading that currently exist at provincial borders. To ensure continued access to US markets, most Canadian provinces have complied with US electricity trading rules. But when transplanted in Canada these rules limit provinces with competitive electricity markets, where electricity customers may choose among suppliers (Alberta and Ontario), in sharing the benefits of trade with their neighbouring monopoly utilities (such as in British Columbia, Manitoba, or Quebec). Some provinces rely mostly on hydroelectric generation, while others rely more on fossil or nuclear-fuelled generation. Carr says Canada would benefit from more electricity trading on an east-west axis because the sharing of different forms of electricity generation – and time-zone diversity – would allow better use of each province’s generation capacity. Carr makes several specific recommendations for provincial action. He also recommends the federal government support provincial initiatives in the event of NAFTA challenges.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueC.D. Howe Institute CommentarySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207