These comments are provided after review of the Discussion Papers and after having participated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comments are provided in one integrated document, due to the close relationship between the discussion papers. Where applicable attached reference documents are provided which provide supplemental information. At times comments will refer to the discussion presented at the Stakeholder Dialogue / Consultation Workshop where relevant, and where these comments might influence the final papers. Some of the comments go beyond the content of the Discussion Papers and relate to the Minister of Energy’s Directive to the OPA, as a copy of these comments will also be routed to the Minister. Summary Comments: The Minister of Energy’s Directive has severely limited the scope of the energy professionals at OPA to identify an integrated supply that is optimal for Ontario. The Ministry directive calls for the IPSP to:- Increase the installed capacity of new renewable resources by 2,700 MW from the 2003 base by 2010, and increase the total capacity of renewable sources to 15,700 MW (from
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 | 0.049 | 0.290 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.263 | 0.168 |
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".