MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592405228 · doi:10.26633/rpsp.2017.12

Strengthening the regulatory system through the implementation and use of a quality management system.

2017· article· en· W2592405228 on OpenAlex
Reinhold Eisner, Rakeshkumar Patel

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality management systemProcess managementQuality managementManagement systemQuality (philosophy)BusinessEngineering managementQuality of analytical resultsProcess (computing)Quality auditGovernment (linguistics)Operations managementComputer scienceEngineeringAuditAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality management systems (QMS), based on ISO 9001 requirements, are applicable to government service organizations such as Health Canada's Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate (BGTD). This communication presents the process that the BGTD followed since the early 2000s to implement a quality management system and describes how the regulatory system was improved as a result of this project. BGTD undertook the implementation of a quality management system based on ISO 9001 and containing aspects of ISO 17025 with the goal of strengthening the regulatory system through improvements in the people, processes, and services of the organization. We discuss the strategy used by BGTD to implement the QMS and the benefits that were realized from the various stages of implementation. The eight quality principals upon which the QMS standards of the ISO 9000 series are based were used by senior management as a framework to guide QMS implementation.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.008 · 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