MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125484123 · doi:10.15173/esr.v17i1.518

Modelling Spot Prices in Deregulated Wholesale Electricity Markets: A Selected Empirical Review

2011· article· en· W3125484123 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew C. Worthington, Helen Higgs

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Studies Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricityRestructuringDeregulationVolatility (finance)Electricity marketSpot contractEconomicsIndustrial organizationElectricity retailingBusinessFinancial economicsMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsFinanceFutures contract

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The restructuring and deregulation of global electricity markets has brought about fundamental changes in the behaviour of wholesale spot prices. In turn, this has fostered a small but increasing volume of literature aimed at modelling and providing best-practice forecasts of electricity prices and price volatility, often employing very high-frequency data. The purpose of this paper is to review the various time-series regression modelling approaches as they apply to competitive electricity markets throughout the world. Apart from discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches and their key findings, the paper also examines the steps faced by researchers as they move through the modelling process. Accordingly, the article provides guidance to those conducting empirical research on electricity prices and serves as an aid for policymakers, managers and practitioners interpreting electricity pricing research outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Studies ReviewSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207