MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057843061 · doi:10.1109/mcom.2012.6257525

Securing smart grid: cyber attacks, countermeasures, and challenges

2012· article· en· W2057843061 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

VenueIEEE Communications Magazine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart gridComputer scienceComputer securityGridSemantic gridCyber-attackOpen researchPower gridArchitecturePower (physics)World Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart grid has emerged as the next-generation power grid via the convergence of power system engineering and information and communication technology. In this article, we describe smart grid goals and tactics, and present a threelayer smart grid network architecture. Following a brief discussion about major challenges in smart grid development, we elaborate on smart grid cyber security issues. We define a taxonomy of basic cyber attacks, upon which sophisticated attack behaviors may be built. We then introduce fundamental security techniques, whose integration is essential for achieving full protection against existing and future sophisticated security attacks. By discussing some interesting open problems, we finally expect to trigger more research efforts in this emerging area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.211 · 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