MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584898769 · doi:10.1002/9781118985960.meh205

Total Quality Management in Mechanical System Design

2015· other· en· W1584898769 on OpenAlex
B.S. Dhillon

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineers' Handbook · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal quality managementCustomer satisfactionQuality (philosophy)Order (exchange)Process managementBusinessOperations managementMarketingComputer scienceEngineeringManufacturing engineeringKnowledge managementService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In today's competitive environment, the age‐old belief of many companies that “the customer is always right” has a new twist. In order to survive, companies are focusing their entire organization on customer satisfaction. The approach followed for ensuring customer satisfaction is known as total quality management (TQM). The challenge is to “manage” so that the “total” and the “quality” are experienced in an effective manner. Many factors contribute to the success of the quality consideration in engineering or mechanical design. This chapter presents some of the important aspects of TQM considered useful to mechanical system design. TQM is a useful tool for application during the design phase. It presents some basic and general aspects of TQM under four distinct sections. Three individuals (i.e.,W. E. Deming, J. M. Juran, and P. B. Crosby) have played an instrumental role in the development of TQM.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.664
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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