Resilience Assessment of Interdependent Infrastructure Systems: A Case Study Based on Different Response Strategies
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
Resilient infrastructure systems are essential for continuous and reliable functioning of social and economic systems. Taking advantage of network theory, this paper models street network, water supply network, power grid and information infrastructure network as layers that are integrated into a multilayer network. The infrastructure interdependencies are described using five basic dependence patterns of fundamental network elements. Definitions of dynamic cascading failures and recovery mechanisms of infrastructure systems are also established. The main contribution of the paper is a new infrastructure network resilience measure capable of addressing complex infrastructure system, as well as network component (layer) interdependences. The new measure is based on infrastructure network performance, proactive absorptive capacity and reactive restorative capacity, with three resilience features of network—robustness, resourcefulness, and rapidity. The quantitative resilience measure using dynamic space-time simulation model is illustrated with a multilayer infrastructure network numerical test, including different response strategies to floods of different scale. The results demonstrate that the resilience measure provides an evaluation method of various protection and restoration strategies that will optimize the performance of interdependent infrastructure system. The sector-specific decisions could not always lead to optimal system solutions, and systems approach offers significant benefits for increasing infrastructure system resilience. This study can assist municipal decision makers in (i) better understanding the effects of different response strategies on the resilience of interdependent infrastructure system, and (ii) deciding which strategy should be adopted under different types of disasters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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