MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985411085 · doi:10.1080/14783360500054343

An investigation into issues related to the latest version of iso 9000

2005· article· en· W1985411085 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nadia Bhuiyan, Nadeem Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueTotal Quality Management & Business Excellence · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality management systemProcess (computing)Process managementQuality (philosophy)Quality of analytical resultsComputer scienceQuality managementBusinessEmpirical researchAccountingOperations managementManagement systemEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research studies the emergence of the latest version of ISO 9000, ISO 9001:2000, which takes a process-based approach to the implementation of quality management systems. The new version has abandoned the structure of 20 sections and now has five comprehensive sections covering all the previous requirements, with some modifications and the introduction of new requirements. This version has introduced a process-based approach that considers the quality management system as a single large process consisting of many smaller processes. The paper focuses on the implementation of ISO 9001:2000 through an empirical study on Canadian firms. Results show that, whether external or internal reasons provided the impetus for registration, Canadian companies registered under the new ISO standard generally face the same degree of difficulty in implementation. However, internally driven companies have less difficulty for certain items. Externally driven companies perceived a higher degree of benefits as compared with internally driven companies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTotal Quality Management & Business ExcellenceSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207