Mediating influence of total quality management between just-in-time techniques and projects performance evaluatio
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the present research is to evaluate the influence between just-in-time technique (JIT) and total quality management TQM in project performance evaluation (PPE) in the paint industry; and to identify the important factors that should be considered for the successful application of JIT in project management in the paint industry ar Riyadh Governorate. A questionnaire was distributed to administrators, economists and accountants in the paint industry. The study used the partial least squares program for analysis purposes. The results indicated that the just-in-time technique has a positive impact on the evaluation of project performance in the balanced scorecard in its dimensions (financial, customers and internal operations), and a negative impact on the growth and learning dimension. The results also revealed a positive impact of total quality management on the evaluation of project performance in all dimensions of the balanced scorecard, and it plays an important mediating role in improving the impact of total quality management on the evaluation of performance by the balanced scorecard.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it