MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082750675 · doi:10.1108/13683040310466681

Musings on integrated management systems

2003· article· en· W2082750675 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

VenueMeasuring Business Excellence · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess managementExcellenceQuality (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Quality management systemMeaning (existential)Management systemEngineering managementRisk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementQuality managementBusinessOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of the avalanche of management system standards for business functions ranging from quality and environment to corporate social responsibility, integration of management systems that these standards describe has become a popular topic of research and practice. This paper provides a summary of the most important issues regarding integrated management systems (IMS), including the main problem, the reasons behind it, the differing routes toward a solution, and the meaning of the solution itself. The overwhelming need for a solution points in the direction of a methodology for the integration of internal management systems, not an integrated standard. This paper illustrates one such methodology, and applies it to provide a foundation for and guide the construction of an IMS. Finally, it is argued that the future of IMS rests with the extension of its minimalistic requirements towards a set of comprehensive criteria able to steer the delivery of excellence to all stakeholders.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.162 · 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