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 OpenAlexaffabout
Reinhold Eisner, Rakeshkumar Patel

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.

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)0.167
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1670.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.442
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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationFrench-language works237,207