MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412651215 · doi:10.1016/j.tej.2025.107484

Electricity market design with increasing renewable generation: Lessons from Alberta

2025· article· en· W4412651215 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David P. Brown, Derek Olmstead, Blake Shaffer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electricity Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsSGS (Canada)University of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsRenewable energyElectricity marketElectricity generationElectricityElectricity retailingNatural resource economicsBusinessEnvironmental economicsIndustrial organizationEconomicsEngineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electricity sector is going through a period of rapid transition with increasing decarbonization through the growth of renewable energy. In this paper, we consider the case of Alberta which has observed considerable growth in wind and solar generation. We summarize the attributes of Alberta’s simplified electricity market design and examine its challenges with increasing renewable output. We explore lessons from integrated market designs that account for the physical realities of the power system during market clearing, highlighting how this alternative market framework can help alleviate Alberta’s challenges. We note how features of this market design can promote a more reliable and cost-effective grid with increasing renewable energy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electricity JournalSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207