MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537246775 · doi:10.1109/pes.2003.1270402

Risk assessment of power systems SCADA

2004· article· en· W1537246775 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2003 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37491) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSCADAReliability engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Electric power systemComputer scienceEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Power (physics)BusinessElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SCADA systems are widely used in power systems for monitoring, operation and control purposes. Failure of the SCADA system can result in severe consequences such as customer load losses and equipment damages, etc. Evaluating these consequences at planning stage can help select the appropriate level of reliability of the SCADA systems. This paper presents a practical method for quantifying the risk associated with the failure of the SCADA systems utilized in power systems. The method first identifies the various components of risk and then evaluates each by considering overlap of the two events, failure of control by SCADA and failure of automatic operation of the power system network. The SCADA risk is calculated and expressed in terms of dollars on a station by station basis. The calculated risk can be used to rank a group of stations, to identify the importance of stations and to establish the reliability requirements for the SCADA system that has the lowest capital cost. The proposed method is applied to the Hydro One Transmission Networks System with its historical operating performance data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it