MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593222654 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6459

INNOVATIVE COURSE SCHEDULING AND CURRICULUM DESIGN

2017· article· en· W2593222654 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumWorkloadScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceScheduleClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationEngineering managementOperations researchEngineeringOperations managementPsychologyArtificial intelligencePedagogyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Course scheduling is a challenging operations research problem that involves students, faculty members, availability of classrooms, class sizes and many other factors. As it is the case for most scheduling problems, course scheduling is an NP-Hard problem. Due to its challenging nature, frequently the main objective is only to find a feasible solution that satisfies students, faculty and classroom requirements rather than seeking the optimality which results in most effective teaching environment for most students. Such optimal learning environment requires the satisfaction of additional constraints such as the learning capacity of students and the capacity requirements of courses. In this research we investigate the possibility of quantifying course (curriculum) workload and the acquired capacity and suggest as curriculum and/or schedule design methodology that enables a near optimum learning environment for most 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.281 · 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