Abstract Energy Policy] (]]]])]]]–]]]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Price volatility analysis has been reported in the literature for most competitive electricity markets around the world. However, no studies have been published yet that quantify price volatility in the Ontario electricity market, which is the focus of the present paper. In this paper, a comparative volatility analysis is conducted for the Ontario market and its neighboring electricity markets. Volatility indices are developed based on historical volatility and price velocity concepts, previously applied to other electricity market prices, and employed in the present work. The analysis is carried out in two scenarios: in the first scenario, the volatility indices are determined for the entire price time series. In the second scenario, the price time series are broken up into 24 time series for each of the 24 h and volatility indices are calculated for each specific hour separately. The volatility indices are also applied to the locational marginal prices of several pricing points in the New England, New York, and PJM electricity markets. The outcomes reveal that price volatility is significantly higher in Ontario than the three studied neighboring electricity markets. Furthermore, comparison of the results of this study with similar findings previously published for 15 other electricity markets demonstrates that the Ontario electricity market is one of the most volatile electricity markets world-wide. This high volatility is argued to be associated with the fact that Ontario is a single-settlement, real-time market.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".