Use of Cyber Attacks as a Case Study for Design Projects in an Undergraduate Process Control Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyberattacks on process control systems are a new phenomenon. A new, simplified, and constrained design project was tested in a third year chemical engineering process control class. This design project was assigned to self-selected, small (3-4) student groups, who were tasked to produce five reports in series. The first report provided a preliminary identification and description of a cyberattack on a chemical process control system. The second report described a more detailed and technical analysis of the cyberattack, using a block diagram. The third report was a proposal of how an engineer on duty during the attack could have mitigated the effects of the cyberattack. The design component was the goal of the fourth report: create a strategy for preventing future, similar cyberattacks. The fifth report was a summary report of the first four reports, with edits made to improve the content and quality of technical writing. After the course was completed, an on-line survey was offered to the students. The results revealed the students’ inexperience with generating a solution to open problems, solving problems with few available resources, and the need for technical writing improvement.46 % of the student survey respondents reported that the project increased their understanding of the relevance of process control to their education; 32 % reported a neutral effect, and 21 % a negative effect. An overall positive recommendation favoured repeating improved iterations of this project
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".