MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1928393880 · doi:10.1109/iscaie.2015.7298333

Solving examination timetabling problem using partial exam assignment with hill climbing search

2015· article· en· W1928393880 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsHill climbingComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)GraphScheduling (production processes)HeuristicTravelling salesman problemMathematical optimizationMachine learningArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a method that combines graph heuristics and hill climbing for addressing the examination timetable problem. In this approach, all exams are ordered with graph heuristic ordering approach and partial exams are considered for scheduling. These partial scheduled exams are then improved using hill climbing until all exams have been successfully scheduled. Various exam assignment values with different graph heuristics ordering have been investigated. The proposed approach has been tested over the twelve Toronto benchmark datasets. The experimental results and comparison with other methods demonstrate that the proposed approach is able to produce good quality timetable.

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.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.028 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Timetabling SolutionsFrench-language works237,207