MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054747554 · doi:10.1145/2542050.2542093

Iterated local search in nurse rostering problem

2013· article· en· W2054747554 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwap (finance)Tabu searchNurse scheduling problemComputer scienceIterated functionIterated local searchMathematical optimizationHill climbingLocal search (optimization)ShufflingGreedy algorithmDescent (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmJob shop schedulingMathematicsScheduleFlow shop scheduling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents how to solve a nurse rostering problem over the real datasets of Centre hospitalier régional de Trois-Rivières hospital in Canada. Due to the complexity of this problem with plenty of hard constraints, we propose an advanced Iterated Local Search, combining Tabu Search with 2 moves: Single Shift Move and Worst-Scheduled Nurse Swap. Greedy Shuffling with Steepest Descent is also used to improve the solution. Experimental results of our proposed algorithm on 5 real datasets improve the current schedules provided by the hospital. Our experimental results satisfy all of the hard constraints and objectives.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScheduling and Timetabling SolutionsFrench-language works237,207