18-Month Outlook Executive Summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents an assessment of the security and adequacy of the Ontario Electricity System for the 18-month period from April 2002 through September 2003. This assessment is based on forecasts of electricity demand and available supply combined with current information on the configuration and capability of the transmission system. Outage plans of generators and transmitters are based on information available as of February 2002. During the Outlook period, the IMO forecasts show that Ontario’s available generation exceeds projected demands. Over this period, approximately 3,000 MW of additional generation resources are expected to either return to service or be placed in service for the first time – thereby enhancing the reliability of the Ontario electricity system. During the first half of the Outlook there are periods when Ontario’s available reserves are forecast to be between 2,000 and 2,500 MW. These reserves are below the IMO’s required planning reserve levels, but do not account for additional resources from outside Ontario that are expected to be available. Reserves are planning buffers identified to address circumstances that cannot be accurately predicted such as weather variations and unscheduled maintenance. The IMO anticipates that the Ontario market will be effective in attracting additional resources to provide adequate reliability. However, there
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".