MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306649397 · doi:10.36278/jeaht.25.3.111

Comparison of On-site Assessment of Testing and Inspection Laboratories

2022· article· en· W4306649397 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTechnology and Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Research
KeywordsAccreditationCertificateQuality assessmentQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceOperations managementEngineeringEngineering managementMedicineMedical educationExternal quality assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality control of testing and inspection laboratories operated in Korea, the United States, and Canada was compared. The basic framework of on-site evaluation operated by each country was similar in terms of evaluation procedure, document evaluation, issuance of verification certificate, and follow-up management. For conducting on-site evaluation and granting the certificate, the preparation materials and evaluation processes are subdivided in Korea, while the dates of granting the certificate are restricted to four times a year in the United States. After receiving accreditation as a testing/inspection laboratories for the first time in Canada, follow-up management is divided into re-evaluation, verification evaluation, and monitoring evaluation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.306 · 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