MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114362719 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2011.6030715

Federated critical infrastructure simulators: Towards ontologies for support of collaboration

2011· article· en· W2114362719 on OpenAlexaff
Katarina Grolinger, Miriam A. M. Capretz, Adam Shypanski, Gagandeep Singh Gill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterdependenceComputer scienceOntologyDomain (mathematical analysis)Critical infrastructureVariety (cybernetics)Electric power systemSystems engineeringDistributed computingPower (physics)Software engineeringSimulationComputer securityEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our society relies greatly on a variety of critical infrastructures (CI), such as power system networks, water distribution, oil and natural gas systems, telecommunication networks and others. Interdependency between those systems is high and may result in cascading failures spanning different infrastructures. Behavior of each CI can be observed and analyzed through the use of domain simulators, but this does not account for their interdependency. To explore CI interdependencies, domain simulators need to be integrated in a federation where they can collaborate. This paper explores three different simulators: the EPANET water distribution simulator, the PSCAD power system simulator and the I2Sim infrastructure interdependency simulator. Each simulator's modeling approach is explored and their similarities and differences between modeling approaches are determined. Core ontology for each simulation engine is created as well as initial mapping between them. Ontologies and their mapping will support collaboration of simulators by enabling exchange of information in a semantic manner.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207