MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032984906 · doi:10.1108/02686900310482696

Auditing in support of the integration of management systems: a case from the nuclear industry

2003· article· en· W2032984906 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueManagerial Auditing Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditQuality management systemInternal auditBusinessFunction (biology)Process managementQuality (philosophy)Quality auditManagement systemSystem integrationRisk analysis (engineering)AccountingKnowledge managementComputer scienceQuality managementOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integration of function‐specific management systems in organizations is rapidly becoming a topic of interest for managers and auditors alike. This is mainly due to the proliferation of management system standards that foster compliance with the stated criteria for quality, environmental, occupational health and safety, social responsibility and other different aspects of performance. While most of the available literature on this topic focuses on the integration of standards, there is comparatively little information on how to actually build an integrated system internally. This paper hypothesizes that audits can provide an excellent basis for these integration efforts, discussing the prerequisites, strategies and resources necessary for an effective audit in support of integrated management systems. The paper also describes how audits are used to improve a combined quality and safety management system in a German nuclear facility.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
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