MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Yikes! Are plant control and power assets safe from cyber-attacks?

2014· article· en· W2077242606 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Flores, A. Martı́nez, Joe Zaccaria, Richard Paes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsRockwell Automation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset managementComputer securityAsset (computer security)Critical infrastructureControl (management)ScalabilityComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessFinanceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are several online monitoring techniques at facilities for critical equipment and asset management. In a world where automated control and power systems are vulnerable to cyber-attacks, Oil and Gas producers find themselves in the difficult position of trying to secure all of their mission critical assets. Although control and power device manufacturers have improved the security capability of their products, many production facilities have control and power assets that are several generations old. Most Oil and Gas Producers are currently, or have already formulated, migration plans to transition to the newer more capable devices. There is a catch. The greatest impediment which arises within the transition to more secure technologies is the lack of comprehensive or accurate installed control asset data. This paper will discuss several systems that have been used for a non-intrusive, scalable and widely applicable control and power asset information management solutions and how they support ISA 99, NIST 800-82 and IEC-62443. The facilities can be shown to provide continuous dynamic asset data and have also been provided for system health and condition monitoring of controls 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 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)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.015

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 head0.173
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207