A multi-phase approach to university course timetabling
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
Course timetabling is a well known constraint satisfaction optimization (CSOP) problem, which needs to be solved in educational institutions regularly.Unfortunately, this course timetabling problem is known to be NP-complete [7,39].This M.Sc.thesis presents a multi-phase approach to solve the university level course timetabling problem.We decompose the problem into several sub-problems with reduced complexity, which are solved in separate phases.In phase-1a we assign lectures to professors, phase-1b assigns labs and tutorials to academic assistances and graduate assistants.Phase-2 assigns each lecture to one of the two day-sequences (Monday-Wednesday-Friday or Tuesday-Thursday).In Phase-3, lectures of each single day-sequence are then assigned to time-slots.Finally, in phase-4, labs and tutorials are assigned to days and time-slots.This decomposition allows the use of different techniques as appropriate to solve different phases.Currently different phases are solved using constraint programming and integer linear programming.The multi-phase architecture with the graphical user interface allows users to customize constraints as well as to generate new solutions that may incorporate partial solutions from previously generated feasible solutions."The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out.Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture.Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it."-Dee Hock I take much pleasure to express my profound gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Shahadat Hossain for his persistent and inspiring supervision.I also thank my M.Sc.supervisory
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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