NERC Member Representatives Committee c/o Electricity Consumers Resource Council
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to invite the Member Representatives Committee (MRC) to provide policy input on four issues of particular interest to the Board of Trustees (Board) as it prepares for the meetings on August 13-14, 2014, in Vancouver, BC. Enclosed with this request is additional background information to help MRC members solicit inputs from their respective sectors. The four issues are: Item 1: Reliability Assurance Initiative (RAI) The goal of RAI is to fully implement a risk-based compliance monitoring and enforcement program. Partnering with industry, the ERO Enterprise executed a series of pilots to test and implement activities and approaches to support risk-based methods and evaluated the results of the pilots. Since the completion of the pilots, activities continue to document the processes and procedures as well as expand the use of select tools and techniques to additional Registered Entities. The ERO Enterprise is currently finalizing the documentation to complete a single design for the four modules outlined in the Compliance Oversight Framework (Framework): risk elements, inherent risk assessment (IRA), internal controls evaluation, and compliance monitoring and enforcement tools. Following the Board meeting in May, the ERO Enterprise worked on developing the IRA Guide (see Attachment A). The IRA Guide describes the process used to assess inherent risk of Registered Entities by the Regions and serves as a guide for implementing and performing an IRA. The MRC is encouraged to provide feedback on the draft IRA Guide. Specifically, the Board requests input on the following questions: 1. Do you agree with the process design of the draft IRA Guide to appropriately scope oversight? Are there areas for enhancement in the draft IRA Guide that would address specific concerns (please provide examples)?
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.370 | 0.183 |
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".