MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139845565 · doi:10.1109/mper.2002.4312401

Market Plurality and Manipulation: Performance Comparison of Independent System Operators

2002· article· en· W3139845565 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Policies and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperator (biology)Vulnerability (computing)Computer scienceElectric power systemMarket powerPower (physics)Mathematical optimizationOperations researchEconomicsMicroeconomicsEngineeringMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the authors present three different models that represent the coordinating functions of existing independent system operators (ISOs) and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. Max-ISO is a centralized operator based on the pool model, and mm-ISO is a decentralized operator based on the bilateral model. Mix-ISO is positioned in-between, having multiple power exchanges or bilateral contracts. The performance of the different ISOs is compared by the total social welfare and the vulnerability to market manipulation. A numerical example is presented to compare the performance of different ISOs. The max-ISO is considered to be the most efficient model theoretically, but it does not necessarily provide the best market in terms of vulnerability to market manipulation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.185 · 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