Optimal Resilience and Risk-Driven Strategies for Pre-Disaster Protection of Electric Power Systems against Uncertain Disaster Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-disaster protection strategies are essential for enhancing the resilience of electric power systems against natural disasters. Considering the budgets for protection strategies, the dependency of other infrastructure systems on electricity, and the uncertainty of disaster scenarios, this paper develops risk-neutral and risk management models of strategies for pre-disaster protection. The risk-neutral model is a stochastic model designed to maximize the expected value of resilience (EVR) of the integrated system. The risk management model is a multi-objective model prioritizing the minimization of risk metrics as a secondary goal alongside maximizing the EVR. A case study conducted on the energy infrastructure systems in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) validates the effectiveness of the models. The findings reveal the following: (i) increasing the budget enhances the EVR of the integrated system; however, beyond a certain budget threshold, the incremental benefits to the EVR significantly diminish; (ii) reducing the value of the downside risk often results in an increase in the EVR, with the variation in Pareto-optimal solutions between the two objectives being non-linear; and (iii) whether for the risk-neutral or risk management protection strategies, there are reasonable budgets when considering disaster intensity and the cost of protection measures. The models can help decision-makers to select effective protection measures for natural disasters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".