Background The existing definition of MPWG Issue #7 (Imports and Exports Setting the Ontario Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the MPWG meeting in December 2008, an industrial consumer suggested that the existing definition of the MPWG Issue #7 is more in the form of a ‘solution ’ rather than an ‘issue ’ i.e. allowing imports and exports to set the real‐time price is a statement of a ‘solution ’ rather than a statement of an ‘issue ’ or ‘problem ’ for which allowing imports and exports to set the clearing price is a potential solution. The consumer requested that the IESO consider re‐defining Issue #7 as an ‘issue’. Issue #7 was first identified by the Market Pricing Working Group in 2004 as a ‘market clearing price formulation ’ issue/initiative. The main concern identified at that time was that intertie transactions could establish pre‐dispatch prices but could not set real‐time market (RTM) prices. Please refer to the Description section in Attachment A. Real‐Time Market Price Formulation in IESO‐Administered Markets Real‐time market prices in the IESO‐administered markets are determined on ‘system marginal cost of production ‘ basis i.e. real‐time energy prices set by the resource that can meet an incremental change in real‐time demand. Economic theory states that “in power market, as in all other markets, the competitive price is never greater than the marginal cost of production ” 1. System marginal cost pricing was expected to result in real‐time price signals that accurately reflect the costs of meeting an incremental change in demand. Such pricing should drive efficient short‐term supply and demand responses (productive and allocative efficiencies) and by extension long term investment and innovation efficiencies (dynamic efficiencies). 1
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".