Construction Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection: Significance, Overlaps, and Proposed Action Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The umbrella concept for the current efforts to digitize construction is known as Construction 4.0. One of its key concepts is cyber-physical systems. The construction industry is not only creating increasingly valuable digital assets (in addition to physical ones) but also the buildings and built infrastructures are increasingly monitored and controlled using digital technology. Both make construction a vulnerable target of cyber-attacks. While the damage to digital assets, such as designs and cost calculations, may result in economic damage, attacks on digitally-controlled physical assets may damage the well-being of occupants and, in worst-case scenarios, even damage (or death) to the users. The problem is amplified by the emerging cyber-physical nature of the systems, where the human checks may be left out. We propose that construction learns from the work done in the context of critical infrastructures (CI). First, a lot of CI is construction-related, and the process of designing and building it must be secured accordingly. Second, while most assets may not be critical in the CI sense, they are critical to the operations of a business and the lives of citizens. In the end, we recommend some steps so that well-established processes of critical infrastructure protection trickle down to make Construction 4.0 and the built environment more cyber-secure. With that in mind, we describe the possible inclusion of Construction 4.0 considerations into existing critical infrastructure protection (CIP) frameworks with minimum frictions. We also propose some suggestions regarding possible future courses of action to improve the increasingly vulnerable cyber-security environment of the built environment across all life cycle phases - design, construction, operation, maintenance, and end of life.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".