MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067326981 · doi:10.5555/545381.545481

Incremental) priority algorithms

2002· article· en· W2067326981 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

VenueSymposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreedy algorithmComputer scienceSimplicityGreedy randomized adaptive search procedureMathematical optimizationAlgorithmScheduling (production processes)Limit (mathematics)Approximation algorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the question of what optimization problems can be optimally or approximately solved by greedy-like algorithms. For definiteness, we will limit the present discussion to some well-studied scheduling problems although the underlying issues apply in a much more general setting. Of course, the main benefit of greedy algorithms lies in both their conceptual simplicity and their computational efficiency. Based on the experience from online competitive analysis, it seems plausible that we should be able to derive approximation bounds for greedy-like algorithms exploiting only the conceptual simplicity of these algorithms. To this end, we will provide a precise definition of what we mean by greedy and greedy-like. A full version of this paper is available at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~ bor/priority.ps.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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