Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of potential pricing issues have been identified by the IMO Market Pricing Working Group in anticipation of the imminent changes to Ontario’s electricity sector as provided for by legislation currently under development by the Government of Ontario. Bill 100 is predominantly enabling legislation. Consequently, a significant number of its provisions will be addressed in greater detail in ensuing regulations. As such, due to the “still in progress ” nature of Bill 100 and the nascent status of its associated regulations, there is presently insufficient information on which to identify and/or anticipate all related pricing issues with any great detail or depth. For the time being, the IMO Market Pricing Working Group has identified two general issues that arise from the Working Group’s understanding of Bill 100 as currently drafted (i.e. as introduced to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for first reading). These issues encompass: (a) Concerns relating to the offering behaviour of “Heritage Pool ” generators – particularly where such generators would be self-scheduling- and associated impacts (whether complementary or distortionary) on market efficiency and reliability; and (b) Concerns relating to ensuring meaningful linkages between wholesale and retail prices, broadly in view of promoting effective consumer participation in electricity and contract markets and facilitating demand response. Until such time as these and other related issues become better defined, this issue summary shall remain “as is ” pending further information, discussion and prioritization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.588 | 0.423 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".