MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding Cyber-physical Resilience From A Power System Perspective

2020· article· en· W3107417568 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy A. Mohamed, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)ContingencyPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Electric power systemCyber-physical systemPower (physics)Socio-ecological systemGridRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityDependabilityArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringBusinessMathematicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilience, as a concept, has been recently become a strategic objective for power grids. However, there are still some conceptual unclarities. Resilience is often mistakenly used as a synonym for reliability. A power system can be reliable but not resilient. This paper clarifies this misconception. It discusses resilience definitions, cycle, and states to better understand resilience aspects. It also discusses power grids' new vulnerabilities and sheds the light on both cyber-physical resilience and cyber contingency concepts. Finally, it reviews the strategies used to enhance grid resilience.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207