Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Le nombre d’entreprises certifiées ISO 9000, qui représente aujourd’hui plus de 400 000 organisations dans le monde, a connu une croissance exponentielle au cours des dernières années. Quelle que soit l’efficacité du système d’assurance qualité mis en place, les entreprises n’ont souvent d’autre choix que de s’engager dans un processus de certification pour répondre aux demandes des clients. La réussite de la démarche de certification et les améliorations qui en découlent reposent sur l’engagement et la conviction du personnel par rapport à un système de gestion dont la légitimité n’est pas toujours bien établie dans l’entreprise. Cet article examine les perceptions du personnel au sujet de la pertinence du système ISO 9000 mis en œuvre dans l’organisation. Une cinquantaine d’entretiens individuels ont été réalisés en dehors du milieu de travail. Ces entretiens révèlent des points de vue souvent dissidents par rapport aux discours officiels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".