MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071212481

Solving Examination Timetabling Problem using Partial Exam Assignment with Great Deluge Algorithm

2015· other· en· W7071212481 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUMP Institutional Repository (Universiti Malaysia Pahang) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsBenchmark (surveying)Quality (philosophy)Process (computing)GraphScheduling (production processes)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constructing a quality solution for the examination
\ntimetable problem is a difficult task. This paper presents a partial exam assignment approach with great deluge algorithm as the improvement mechanism in order to generate good quality timetable. In this approach, exams are ordered based on graph heuristics and only selected exams (partial exams) are scheduled first and then improved using great deluge algorithm. The entire process continues until all of the exams have been scheduled. We implement the proposed technique on the Toronto benchmark datasets. Experimental results indicate that in all problem instances, this proposed method outperforms traditional great deluge algorithm and when comparing with the state-of-the-art approaches, our approach produces competitive solution for all instances, with some cases outperform other reported result.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.201 · 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