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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality audit, as a methodology for evaluating system, product and/or process performance against established requirements, has experienced substantial growth in worldwide use in recent years. This is largely due to the steady increase in ISO 9000 registrations, which topped 350,000 in the year 2000. Based on the fundamental principles of independence, objectivity and professionalism, the audit is an irreplaceable tool when confirmation of compliance with standards is sought. However, it commonly fails in enabling continuous improvement and spanning the differing aspects of business performance beyond conventional “quality assurance”. This paper argues for removing one of the principles of traditional auditing, namely independence, to empower the process owner to conduct periodic self‐evaluations of process performance. Such “self‐audits” would be less formal than quality audits, and, much like the better‐known self‐assessments against business excellence models, aimed at continuous quality improvement. The concept, principles and practices of a self‐audit are focused on.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it