Towards an Effective Electrical Market Design: Identifying and Defining Key Criteria for Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our changing energy landscape, electricity is taking a major role in achieving decarbonization goals. Electricity can be a clean and efficient source of energy, and it is well-suited to help countries meet their climate goals. However, the electrical market is complex and constantly evolving, and it is important to carefully choose the design elements of the market to ensure that it is meeting its objectives. In this context, evaluating an electrical market's effectiveness requires a multifaceted approach that takes into account a range of elements, from environmental impact to economic viability. This paper provides an overview of several evaluation methods for different objectives to finally select the key criteria to consider in assisting decision-makers, regulators, and stakeholders in developing an electricity market that is not only effective but also reliable and sustainable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".