MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156412594 · doi:10.5539/mas.v4n9p66

Aspects of Quality Tools on Total Quality Management

2010· article· en· W2156412594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kairong Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Total quality managementComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Process managementQuality managementProcess (computing)Quality policyQuality assuranceManagement scienceOperations managementBusinessEngineeringMathematicsManagement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Quality Tools to improve both product and process quality is currently a common practice. However, there are two schools of thought on the use of Quality Tools, namely, statistical quality tools or non-statistical quality tools. The purpose of this article is to literature review the pros of implementing these quality tools; review the issues related to the implementation of such tools and finally understand the role of such tools in the framework of TQM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicQuality and Management SystemsFrench-language works237,207