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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We introduce and investigate the problem of scheduling activities of a project by a firm that competes with another firm (the competitor) that has to perform the same project. The profit that the firm gets from each activity depends on whether the firm finishes the activity before or after its competitor. The objective is to maximize the guaranteed (worst‐case) profit. We assume that both the firm and the competitor can perform only one activity at a time. We perform a detailed complexity analysis of the problem, and consider problems with and without precedence constraints, with and without delay of the competitor, with general and equal processing times of activities. For polynomially solvable cases (which include, for example, all the considered problems without delay of the competitor), we present easily implementable and intuitive rules that allow us to obtain optimal schedules in linear or almost linear time. For some NP‐hard cases, we present pseudopolynomial algorithms and fast heuristics with worst‐case approximation guarantees. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2005.
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 it