Bibliographic record
Abstract
An ongoing challenge for power markets worldwide is to assure sufficient continued investment to maintain reliability. A properly designed capacity market – in which plants receive payment for available supply capacity whether or not the power generator runs – may enable Ontario to increase reliance on market signals for new investment. To be effective, the government must pair building a capacity market with several changes in the role and function of existing Ontario power market institutions. The government should isolate policymakers from implementation agencies. The Ontario power sector today has oversupply, a mismatch of generator capabilities and needs, rising prices to final consumers, a lack of transparency in prices, and volatile and contradictory policies. Consequently, private-sector actors are unable to justify investment without some form of government-backed contract. The government’s failure to rely on either sound planning or market principles has meant that the province has not procured generation capacity at a long-run least cost. Current surplus supply conditions provide a window for thoughtful policy review. The government should establish a market that sends transparent and effective price signals of the need for new electricity generation capacity. Doing so first requires creating appropriate buffers between implementation entities and policymakers, meaning that the government should not use ministerial directives to interfere with the day-to-day operation of key power sector institutions. It also requires that the province replace the Ontario Power Authority’s principal buyer role with newly created supply entities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".