MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6959752595 · doi:10.11575/prism/39767

A Stochastic Model for Power Prices in the Alberta Electricity Market

2022· other· en· W6959752595 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricity marketElectricityPower (physics)Electricity generationSpot contractCommitDynamic demandBase load power plantWind power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While energy companies commit to provide the required amount of electricity to meet the power consumers’ demand, several factors can affect the demand for electricity and consequently, affect the electricity pricing. Example of these factors are weather conditions, cost of power generation, and government tax policies. Therefore, energy companies must deal with the problem of hedging load and price risk. Power prices typically exhibit some characteristics that are crucial to be considered in modelling power prices. In Alberta, periodicity, mean-reversion, and sudden power price spikes are the most common characteristics of power prices that can be explained by changes in supply and demand for electricity. The other significant feature of power prices in Alberta is the strong link between power prices and fuel prices. Therefore, it is important to obtain a power price model which shows the stochastic dynamics of fuel prices and energy demand (i.e., load) in Alberta. For this purpose, we propose a power price model considering the strong link between power price and load which facilitates the energy companies’ hedging purposes. We use the structural model for power price modelling in which the power spot price is assumed to be a parametric function of the influential factors, such as, fuel prices and load, and the dynamic features of power prices are specified by the stochastic processes of these influential factors. Incorporating these factors in the power price model allows to capture the significant features of power prices. This model also provides the opportunity of finding a closed form formula for power forward prices.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→