Genetic Algorithm Optimization for Automatic Scheduling in the System at State Junior High School Four Binjai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binjai State Junior High School faces challenges in developing an optimal class schedule each semester. The manual process currently in place is often time-consuming, error-prone, and inflexible in adapting to sudden changes such as teacher changes or school policy changes. Furthermore, scheduling conflicts frequently occur, where a teacher is scheduled to teach two different classes at the same time, or a class has two subjects in one session. This scheduling process must consider various constraints, such as teacher availability, class size, subject matter, and limited learning space. The manual scheduling process is often time-consuming, error-prone, and difficult to adapt to sudden changes such as teacher changes or curriculum changes. To address these challenges, an automated system is needed that can generate schedules efficiently and optimally. Genetic Algorithms are a method in artificial intelligence that can solve optimization problems by mimicking biological evolutionary mechanisms such as selection, crossover, and mutation. By implementing Genetic Algorithms in the scheduling system, it is hoped that more optimal schedules can be produced by reducing schedule conflicts and increasing time efficiency in the scheduling process.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".