Constructing resilience model of port infrastructure based on system dynamics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The port industry, which plays an important role in Korea's economy, is exposed to various disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and chemical accidents. Therefore, resilience needs to be assessed to evaluate how properly port system can recover its function even after being damaged, and weak points should be complemented by the policy. However, the port infrastructure is too complicated to analyze all the components, so a systemic approach is needed. Therefore, this study evaluates the resilience of the port infrastructure using system dynamics model, which can compare quantitative performance index. This study sets up the cargo process, the most important economic index of the port, as the performance level and constructs a system dynamics model by finding elements corresponding to attributes of resilience. In addition to disruption and recovery actions in the disaster situation, the model also incorporates socioeconomic factors such as changes in cargo demand and financial state, resulting in close proximity to case studies. Simulation of disaster situations with resilience assessment model can express recovery process of the system and accumulated economic damage. By applying various inputs and scenarios, the result of this study can be used as a basis for comparing the resilience of port infrastructure and establishing the reinforcement policy.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it