High School Course Scheduling: Student Preferences and Fairness Constraints (Student Abstract)
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
Increasing student populations and diverse course offerings have led to perceived inequities in U.S. high school course scheduling. Traditional integer programming (IP) methods for the High School Scheduling Problem (HSSP) fail to address these fairness concerns. This research introduces the Fair High School Scheduling Problem (FHSSP), an extension of the HSSP that incorporates student preferences and fairness principles from market design. We develop an IP model to generate course schedules that are both feasible and equitable. Tested on real course request data from a California high school, our model successfully produces schedules that ensure fairness without compromising feasibility. These results demonstrate the potential of our approach to enhance fairness in high school scheduling and its applicability to various real-world scheduling challenges. Additionally, this study highlights the feasibility of integrating human preferences and emotions into mathematical models, promoting more inclusive and balanced allocation systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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