Are Your Lights Off? Using Problem Frames to Diagnose System Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on our experience of investigating the role of software systems in the power blackout that affected parts of the United States and Canada on 14 August 2003. Based on a detailed study of the official report on the blackout, our investigation aimed to bring out requirements engineering lessons that can inform development practices for dependable software systems. Based on the assumption that the causes of failures are rooted in the complex structures of software systems and their world contexts, we decided to deploy and evaluate a framework that looks beyond the scope of software and into its physical context, and directs attention to places in the system structures where failures are likely to occur. We report that (i) Problem Frames were effective in diagnosing the causes of failures and documenting the causes in a schematic and accessible way, and (ii) errors in addressing the concerns of bid-dable domains, model building problems, and monitoring problems had contributed to the blackout.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".