MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796918248 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195727

Modeling joint restoration strategies for interdependent infrastructure systems

2018· article· en· W2796918248 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

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInterdependenceCritical infrastructureComputer scienceJoint (building)Process (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)Event (particle physics)Cascading failureComponent (thermodynamics)Interdependent networksCritical infrastructure protectionOperations researchBusinessEngineeringComputer securityElectric power systemCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life in the modern world depends on multiple critical services provided by infrastructure systems which are interdependent at multiple levels. To effectively respond to infrastructure failures, this paper proposes a model for developing optimal joint restoration strategy for interdependent infrastructure systems following a disruptive event. First, models for (i) describing structure of interdependent infrastructure system and (ii) their interaction process, are presented. Both models are considering the failure types, infrastructure operating rules and interdependencies among systems. Second, an optimization model for determining an optimal joint restoration strategy at infrastructure component level by minimizing the economic loss from the infrastructure failures, is proposed. The utility of the model is illustrated using a case study of electric-water systems. Results show that a small number of failed infrastructure components can trigger high level failures in interdependent systems; the optimal joint restoration strategy varies with failure occurrence time. The proposed models can help decision makers to understand the mechanisms of infrastructure interactions and search for optimal joint restoration strategy, which can significantly enhance safety of 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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.196 · 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