MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4238238240 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14664021.v1

Applying the principles of Six sigma to environmental management systems : lessons learned from a case study

2021· preprint· en· W4238238240 on OpenAlexaff
Anahita Asadolahniajami

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSix SigmaContext (archaeology)Conceptual frameworkResource consumptionConsumption (sociology)Resource (disambiguation)Quality (philosophy)Conceptual modelOperations managementBusinessProcess managementEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the thesis was to explore the potential benefits of applying the key principles of Six sigma to Environmental Management Systems (EMSs). A survey of peer-reviewed literature on Six sigma and EMSs was developed. The application of the conceptual framework is demonstrated in a case study. The case study focused on a major Middle Eastern manufacturing company. The case study showed that there were numerous benefits to applying the principles of Six sigma to EMSs. An approach based on the conceptual framework was successful in reducing waste in the case company's paint shop by 80%. Other benefits of applying the conceptual framework included cost reduction, decreased consumption of raw materials, decreased amount of waste water, longer resource life through reduced usage, reduced materials, decreased amount of waste water, longer resource life through reduced usage, reduced emissions, reduced energy consumption, and improved employee health and safety due to less exposure to harmful chemicals. The conceptual framework provides a basis for applying the principles of Six sigma to EMSs. While there is a significant amount of research focusing on the integration of quality and environmental management, the application of Six sigma in the context of environmental management has not been widely discussed. It is anticipated that the results will be of interest to practitioners and researchers in quality and environmental management.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business→French-language works237,207→