MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414309561 · doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2025.111149

A comprehensive review on power system resilience: Definition, assessment, and enhancement strategies

2025· article· en· W4414309561 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Ghanbari, Jin Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Reliability (semiconductor)Electric power systemVariety (cybernetics)ConfusionKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing frequency of extreme events in power systems has rendered traditional operation and control techniques ineffective during these events. This has led to the emergence of the concept of power system resilience as a key area of investigation. The literature presents a variety of definitions and metrics associated with this concept. However, misconceptions, misinterpretations, and confusion exist between resilience and other well-known concepts, including reliability and robustness. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the concept of resilience, emphasizing the need for new assessment metrics and techniques for evaluation, as well as enhancement strategies. The paper has drawn the research results and resilience works from a large number of studies to provide a holistic view of this subject. Significant efforts have been made to distinguish the concept of reliability from that of resilience. The paper has also provided a state-of-the-art review of current practices in the power and energy areas and shed light on potential directions of future studies.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Electrical Power & Energy SystemsSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207