MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111594423 · doi:10.2478/nybj-2014-0012

Integrative Augmentation with the New ISO 10000 Standards1

2014· article· en· W2111594423 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

VenueNang yan business journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmentativeGuidelineAuditQuality (philosophy)Process managementQuality management systemComputer scienceQuality auditQuality managementEngineering managementKnowledge managementManagement systemEngineeringOperations managementBusinessMedicineAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Application and integration of the systems based on ISO 10001: 2007 and other new augmentative standards are discussed. Particular attention is paid to the quality management standards forming the front end of the ISO 10000 series, namely ISO 10001, ISO 10002 and ISO 10003, as well as ISO 19011, the standard which stems from the original augmentative ISO 10000 guideline, specifically ISO 10011 on quality auditing. The ability of these and other similar standards to augment the performance of quality management systems in organizations and to foster integration of the respective augmentative systems themselves or within the overarching management systems is addressed and further illustrated through an example of their use in engineering education.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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