Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the introduction of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 registration schemes in the past decade and a half, the application of quality and environmental audits has soared. Namely, the audits are used to verify compliance of quality and environmental management systems with the ISO standards. However, concerns have been raised in recent years about the usefulness of such an application for continuous business improvement, inconsistencies of audit processes and results, and the value of compliance audits in understanding complexities of business systems. In order to address concerns of a like kind, this paper advocates the implementation of the systems approach in auditing. The purpose is twofold. Firstly, it is to illustrate how various interrelationships among audit elements essentially form a unique, underlying, integrated and generic audit system. Secondly, the paper addresses the advantages of using the systems approach in auditing. This includes a more dynamic and adaptive audit, harmonization and integration of discipline-specific audits and corresponding audit guidelines, as well as a sound conceptualization of audit quality, reliability and maintainability.
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 | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".