Relationships between the integration of audits and management systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the application and the level of integration of internal and external audits in organizations that are registered to multiple management system standards. Design/methodology/approach Using descriptive analyses, this work examines the manner in which organizations, categorized in a previous study with respect to the degree of integration of their standardized management systems (MSs), apply and integrate the related MS audits. The sample included 435 Spanish organizations registered to ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO 14001: 2004 at the minimum. Findings It was found that organizations that exhibited a higher level of integration of their standardized MSs also demonstrated more highly‐integrated audits. In addition, the level of integration was generally higher for internal compared with the external audits. Research limitations/implications The main limitation was related to the survey responses, because they were asked and obtained from the organizations' managers only, and not from the registrars or other external audit bodies. Originality/value The study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the usage of auditing systems in organizations, in particular the level of integration of internal and external MS audits relative to the integration of the corresponding MSs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".