comments to the draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SE-93) and the Terms of Reference of the Reliability Standards Auditing Working Group (“RSAWG”) regarding the Compliance Auditing of Reliability Standards for Ontario Market Participants. Hydro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One offers the following comments for your consideration: 1. The first objective listed on page 2 of the draft engagement plan states that the stakeholder engagement’s goal is to provide “…stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback to MACD on their business needs around the auditing process (e.g. audit preparation materials, timing of deadlines, etc). ” However, on page 1 of the plan, items such as evidentiary requirements and disclosure of audit results are listed as “Out of Scope”. Hydro One submits that these items and others are important parts of the audit process and should be discussed and agreed on so Ontario entities can prepare accordingly. 2. The last bullet in the Terms of Reference document states that the Working Group is meant to provide advice and as a result consensus is not a goal of the engagement. Hydro One submits that, considering that Market Rule amendments will need to be in place (including Stakeholders Engagement, Technical Panel and IESO Board of Directors approval) to allow MACD to proceed with audit activities in Ontario, the RSAWG is the appropriate group to discuss and reach
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 | 0.014 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.011 |
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".