MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385347109 · doi:10.3390/s23156716

Cybersecurity Risk Analysis of Electric Vehicles Charging Stations

2023· review· en· W4385347109 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Safa Hamdare, Omprakash Kaiwartya, Mohammad Aljaidi, Manish Jugran, Yue Cao, Sushil Kumar, Mufti Mahmud, David J. Brown, Jaime Lloret

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Electric vehicleComputer securityEngineeringAdaptation (eye)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing availability of Electric Vehicles (EVs) is driving a shift away from traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Subsequently, the demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems (EVCS) is rising, leading to the significant growth of EVCS as public and private charging infrastructure. The cybersecurity-related risks in EVCS have significantly increased due to the growing network of EVCS. In this context, this paper presents a cybersecurity risk analysis of the network of EVCS. Firstly, the recent advancements in the EVCS network, recent EV adaptation trends, and charging use cases are described as a background of the research area. Secondly, cybersecurity aspects in EVCS have been presented considering infrastructure and protocol-centric vulnerabilities with possible cyber-attack scenarios. Thirdly, threats in EVCS have been validated with real-time data-centric analysis of EV charging sessions. The paper also highlights potential open research issues in EV cyber research as new knowledge for domain researchers and practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations123
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)French-language works237,207