Interdependent critical infrastructures resilience: methodology and case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a coherence analysis to evaluate the resilience for a critical infrastructure (CI). This is the new way to evaluate the CI and demonstrate that the authors need to pass from the protection towards resilience. Design/methodology/approach – The authors use two approaches for this research. First is a consequence-based approach to evaluate the resilience. This approach has been used many times for evaluating the interdependencies between CIs. The second is a systemic approach to characterize the system and doing the coherence analysis. Findings – This paper presents a methodology to evaluate the coherence in a context of CIs protection. The coherence analysis in resilience is a new concept and the first result to the application seems very good for the user of the research. Originality/value – The originality of this paper is the coherence analysis applied to a resilience evaluation. The criteria for coherence analysis is innovative and it is a new way to consider the resilience and the relation between an organization and it is partners. Another value is the need for a wider scope in the analysis of hazards and how to address them that includes the infrastructure system itself, but also other related organizations and infrastructure systems.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".