Resilient cities critical infrastructure interdependence: a meta-research
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
Given the unforeseen events that take continue to place worldwide, cities are experiencing rapid transformations. To maintain their basic functions, cities have to be resilient– possess the ability to bounce back to their original state following extreme events. Unfortunately, the behavior of cities is complex because of the interdependence among their comprising infrastructure systems. The current work presents a critical review of research work pertaining to resilience of cities’ critical infrastructure systems. To conduct such review, meta-research is employed through text analytics, in the form of topic modelling, to quantitatively uncover related latent topics in pertinent literature. Subsequently, the identified topics are qualitatively analyzed in terms of established definitions and metrics for resilience as well as adopted simulation approaches for infrastructure systems interdependence. Accordingly, nine common topics and five major research gaps are identified. This meta-research study is a steppingstone towards better understanding of infrastructure systems interdependence simulation and their resilience quantification approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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