MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321372786 · doi:10.3390/fi15020083

Analysis of Cyber Security Attacks and Its Solutions for the Smart grid Using Machine Learning and Blockchain Methods

2023· article· en· W4321372786 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Internet · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart gridComputer securityDependabilityNetwork packetGridNetwork securityComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart grids are rapidly replacing conventional networks on a worldwide scale. A smart grid has drawbacks, just like any other novel technology. A smart grid cyberattack is one of the most challenging things to stop. The biggest problem is caused by millions of sensors constantly sending and receiving data packets over the network. Cyberattacks can compromise the smart grid’s dependability, availability, and privacy. Users, the communication network of smart devices and sensors, and network administrators are the three layers of an innovative grid network vulnerable to cyberattacks. In this study, we look at the many risks and flaws that can affect the safety of critical, innovative grid network components. Then, to protect against these dangers, we offer security solutions using different methods. We also provide recommendations for reducing the chance that these three categories of cyberattacks may occur.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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