Reducing Student Distraction Through Fuzzy Logic Based Seating Arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A crucial skill for primary school teachers is maintaining efficient classroom management. Teachers use classroom seating arrangements to help maintain this efficiency. However, developing classroom seating arrangements is both time-consuming and often non-optimal for distraction mitigation. Fuzzy logic-based approaches for the development of classroom seating arrangements can reduce development time and minimize classroom distraction. In this study, an original fuzzy logic-based software package named "CUB" is introduced and applied to a modern classroom using "cluster" seating arrangements. The combination of fuzzy inference systems, fuzzy c-means clustering, sequential, and iterative processes produce ready-to-use seating arrangements for the classroom in this study. The seating arrangements are compared with an existing set of seating arrangements to validate the results. The author's findings show that CUB is successful in generating applicable seating arrangements with a small liklihood of replicating arrangements. The findings also suggest that fuzz logic-based approaches may be successful in other styles of classroom arrangement.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".