MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081877096 · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602070

A methodology to optimize foundation seminar assignments

2005· article· en· W2081877096 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Operational Research Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health Quality Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Computer scienceLiberal arts educationThe artsHeuristicMathematics educationOperations researchPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsVisual artsHigher educationHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract First-year students entering the College of Arts & Sciences at Bucknell University (USA) are required to enroll in a first-year experience course called a foundation seminar during their first semester. A few months before arriving at Bucknell, students submit a prioritized list of foundation seminars of interest to them, given course descriptions of all available foundation seminar sections. Then, based on capacity and scheduling constraints, each student is assigned to a particular seminar. Currently, this assignment of students to specific seminars is carried out using both manual and heuristic methods. We propose to apply an optimization methodology to this interesting real-world problem in an attempt to determine assignments that better satisfy the highest preferences of entering first-year students.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.617
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.025 · 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