System of Systems Engineering and Risk Management of Extreme Events: Concepts and Case Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The domain of risk analysis is expanded to consider strategic interactions among multiple participants in the management of extreme risk in a system of systems. These risks are fraught with complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty, which pose challenges in how participants perceive, understand, and manage risk of extreme events. In the case of extreme events affecting a system of systems, cause-and-effect relationships among initiating events and losses may be difficult to ascertain due to interactions of multiple systems and participants (complexity). Moreover, selection of threats, hazards, and consequences on which to focus may be unclear or contentious to participants within multiple interacting systems (ambiguity). Finally, all types of risk, by definition, involve potential losses due to uncertain events (uncertainty). Therefore, risk analysis of extreme events affecting a system of systems should address complex, ambiguous, and uncertain aspects of extreme risk. To accomplish this, a system of systems engineering methodology for risk analysis is proposed as a general approach to address extreme risk in a system of systems. Our contribution is an integrative and adaptive systems methodology to analyze risk such that strategic interactions among multiple participants are considered. A practical application of the system of systems engineering methodology is demonstrated in part by a case study of a maritime infrastructure system of systems interface, namely, the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it