MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1600222879 · doi:10.1002/9780470087923.hhs238

Characterizing Infrastructure Failure Interdependencies to Inform Systemic Risk

2008· other· en· W1600222879 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timothy L. McDaniels, Stephanie E. Chang, D. A. Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlackoutInterdependenceParallelsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceCritical infrastructureElectric power systemEvent (particle physics)Risk analysis (engineering)StormPower (physics)BusinessEngineeringOperations managementComputer securityGeographyPolitical scienceMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article develops a conceptual and analytical framework with empirical applications to characterizeinfrastructure failure interdependencies(IFIs). It uses major electrical power outages as the context for understanding how extreme events (within or external to the power system) lead to failures of other infrastructure systems, given a major electrical power outage. The article takes an empirical approach by examining the patterns of IFIs that occurred in two events: the August 2003 northeastern North American blackout and the 1998 Quebec ice storm. Section 2 discusses concepts for characterizing IFIs conditional on an extreme event and draws parallels to other models. Then the categories of the framework to characterize IFIs and their consequences are discussed. Section 3 documents and compares the IFIs from the two major outages. Section 4 provides discussion and conclusions regarding future extensions of this work and its applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland SecuritySame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207