NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY INTEGRATION The Prospects for Regulatory Coordination and Seamless Cross-Border Transactions PREFACE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can a customer in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon directly purchase gas or power from a company in Vancouver, British Columbia? Do events in California energy markets matter in North Carolina? Are the North American gas and power industries growing closer together and, if so, is this a good thing? Should the governments of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico make explicit efforts to align their energy policies, and could they – in light of our complex histories and relationships? The North American energy region is rich with questions and debates like these. All are pertinent to the range of interests from energy CEOs to the smallest customers, from regulators to elected and appointed policymakers. Our energy future rests on the outcomes of actions taken yesterday and today that will make North America either a more or a less cohesive continental market for natural gas and electricity. We are not the only region engaged in this test. Many parts of the world are faced with the need to cooperate out of necessity. The combination of overarching economic trade regimes and policy and regulatory compatibility may be the hallmark of emerging constellations of countries linked by shared energy resources and networks. The fundamental issue is whether these ingredients necessarily work together to produce the results, intended or otherwise, that might be expected. For the past two years, an Energy Institute-led team engaged in a conceptualization of the North
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 | 0.000 | 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".