Challenges in implementing a functional ISO 14001 environmental management system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the key findings of a colloquium on ISO 14001. The colloquium focused on three key areas: critical loops and synergies among management system elements, the full spectrum of management system auditing, and integrating management systems. Design/methodology/approach A total of 40 Canadian experts on environmental management systems from a wide variety of sectors participated in the colloquium. Findings The colloquium provided insights into implementation issues around the three key areas noted above. The colloquium focused on discussing issues associated with corrective and preventive action, objectives and targets, internal and external auditing, and integrating change into management systems. The issues are presented in detail in the paper. Originality/value The participants in the colloquium believed that the findings will be of interest to both practitioners and academics in environmental management systems. The findings will also be of interest to practitioners and academics in quality and other standardized management systems.
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 | 0.137 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".