A New Model for Automated Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated examination timetabling has been addressed by a wide variety of methodologies and techniques over the last ten years or so. Many of the methods in this broad range of approaches have been evaluated on a collection of benchmark instances provided at the University of Toronto in 1996. Whilst the existence of these datasets has provided an invaluable resource for research into examination timetabling, the instances have significant limitations in terms of their relevance to real-world examination timetabling in modern universities. This paper presents a detailed model which draws upon experiences of implementing exam timetabling systems in universities in Europe, Australasia and America. This model represents the problem that is presented in the 2nd International Timetabling Competition (ITC2007). In presenting this detailed new model, this paper describes the examination timetabling track introduced as part of the competition. In addition to the model, the datasets used in the competition are also based on current real world instances introduced by EventMAP Limited. It is hoped that the interest generated as part of this competition will lead to the development, investigation and application of a host of novel and exciting techniques to address this important real world search domain. Moreover, the motivating goal of this paper is to close the currently existing gap between theory and practice in examination timetabling by presenting the research community with a rigorous model which represents the complexity of the real-world situation. In this paper we describe the model and its motivations, followed by a full formal definition. 1
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".