On-the-Fly Scheduling as a Manifestation of Partial-Order Planning and Dynamic Task Values
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
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a computational account of the spontaneous task ordering that occurs within jobs as work unfolds ("on-the-fly task scheduling"). BACKGROUND: Air traffic control is an example of work in which operators have to schedule their tasks as a partially predictable work flow emerges. To date, little attention has been paid to such on-the-fly scheduling situations. METHOD: We present a series of discrete-event models fit to conflict resolution decision data collected from experienced controllers operating in a high-fidelity simulation. RESULTS: Our simulations reveal air traffic controllers' scheduling decisions as examples of the partial-order planning approach of Hayes-Roth and Hayes-Roth. The most successful model uses opportunistic first-come-first-served scheduling to select tasks from a queue. Tasks with short deadlines are executed immediately. Tasks with long deadlines are evaluated to assess whether they need to be executed immediately or deferred. CONCLUSION: On-the-fly task scheduling is computationally tractable despite its surface complexity and understandable as an example of both the partial-order planning strategy and the dynamic-value approach to prioritization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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