MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098048096

Stakeholder Engagement SE-42 Response to Written Stakeholder Comments on Consumer Forum Draft Terms of Reference

2011· article· en· W7098048096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Sustainable Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderParagraphProcess (computing)Meaning (existential)Stakeholder engagementOutreach
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second bullet under 4 (b) could be interpreted as meaning that comments from the Consumer Forum will only be provided to other SH processes and only (indirectly) find their way into the IESO decision making process through these other forums. IESO staff and management should be using this process as a vehicle by which to directly receive input from consumers. IESO Response The wording in 4(b) has been revised. Comments from the Consumer Forum will be made available to IESO decision makers as well as other IESO stakeholder engagement mechanisms. Al Paskevicius, McMaster University As a recent interviewee, I fully support the development of the Consumer Forum. I realize that the need to get consumer feedback from groups/individuals other than large users is very important for the further evolution of the de‐regulated electricity marketplace. I do not have any comments on the content of Terms of Reference but I am concerned about the effectiveness of an outreach program to attract smaller consumers, including residential customers. The document does however reflect comments I made during the interview process. The paragraph on Page 1 of the Draft, i.e. “The IESO’s stakeholder engagement process…….the same level of resources as suppliers ” says it all in my opinion. Large users and Wholesale Market Participants are (or should be) very much in tune with the entire workings of the electricity marketplace. For smaller consumers, LDC’s “shield ” their customers from the OEB, the OPA, the IESO, OPGI, the HONI system, etc. (Monthly electricity invoices do reflect some of this however). An effective advertising campaign should be considered to help small users to become better acquainted with the market players. If not, then the Customer Forum may have difficulty in attracting participants. To be blunt, just who is the OEB, the OPA, OPGI, and what do they represent? I doubt that the average consumer knows. Another way to look the evolution of market de‐regulation as a whole is to compare the Imperial system to Metric. My generation grew up under the Imperial system, my kids are growing up with the Metric system. My generation grew up with Ontario Hydro and our local P.U.C. How difficult was it for some of us in my generation to adjust to the Metric system?

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0200.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.037

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.060 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate Change and Sustainable DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207