Enhancing Risk Assessment Through Contextualized Application of Systematic Impact Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic impact analysis approaches provide well-defined, logically connected steps to study various cyberattack impacts (e.g., operational, physical, safety, environmental, or economic) on modern Industrial Control System (ICS) operations. However, these analyses are typically performed in isolation, limiting the potential benefits of contextualizing them in the broader and more well-defined risk assessment context within existing standardized and concrete guidance. In this work, we chose a representative systematic impact analysis approach, and we explicitly define its relations to two representative risk assessment approaches, one meant to provide abstract, standardized guidance and the other meant to provide concrete model-based guidance. We demonstrate the systematic impact analysis using a real-world wastewater treatment ICS case study modeled and simulated in Uppaal-SMC, where the process steps and requirements are discussed in the two risk assessment contexts. The demonstration highlights the interrelations and mutual benefits of the contextualized application of systematic impact analysis with risk assessment.
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 | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".