Manager, Stakeholder Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am writing to provide you with some additional input and commentary on the IESO’s planned Consumers Forum. These views have been assembled with the input of BOMA Toronto’s Strategic Energy Committee. At the outset, we would like to commend the IESO for recognizing the need for more inclusive consumer participation in IESO affairs, and for making the effort to seek it out. We concur with your observations that many consumers simply do not have the inclination, or the resources, to participate in IESO initiatives. Even more fundamentally, many consumers lack a requisite level of working knowledge. As such, we concur with your stated objectives of ‘learning ’ and ‘promoting awareness ’ amongst consumers. Our basic premise is that the IESO is not hearing from the majority of electricity consumers who could play a role in shaping new electricity initiatives. And we believe the IESO has been unduly influenced by the minority of large wholesale consumers, whose interest may not be representative of the broader market. Large wholesale industrial consumers represent approx. 17 % of total end-use load. These consumers are direct customers of the IESO, and are well versed. They have made their positions known on various electricity sector issues and can be expected to continue to do so. The challenge facing the IESO is to seek out and hear from the remaining 83%. One thing the IESO could do at the outset is to reinforce and communicate this fundamental customer segmentation. Ie.
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads 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".