MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412885965 · doi:10.54609/reaser.v29i1.510

The Use of Statistical Process Control in Total Quality Management: Bibliometric Analysis of Publication Performance and Research Trends

2025· article· en· W4412885965 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

VenueReview of Applied Socio-Economic Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEconomic and Technological Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical process controlBibliometricsQuality (philosophy)Control (management)Statistical analysisTotal quality managementProcess (computing)Computer scienceData scienceLibrary scienceStatisticsEngineeringOperations managementMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total quality management (TQM) is a research topic that has attracted the attention of many researchers from the past until now because this concept is widely used for quality improvement strategies involving all organizational processes. This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify research patterns and trends in the scientific literature using Statistical Process Control (SPC) tools in Total Quality Management (TQM). Bibliometric analysis techniques are used for descriptive and performance analysis and research field mapping. Data was collected from the Scopus database with source-type journals of as many as 730 documents and analyzed using Bibliometrix on R software and VOSviewer. Statistical Process Control in Total Quality Management spans diverse fields like Medicine, Engineering, Business, Management and Accounting, Decision Sciences, and Nursing. Key publications appear in Pediatrics, Quality Progress, BMJ Open Quality, BMJ Quality and Safety, and TQM Magazine. Influential authors are Kaplan HC, Wang Z, and Wu Z. This field of research has been developed by researchers from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, China and Taiwan. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, University of Washington, Johns Hopkins University, and McMaster University are the most relevant institutions. Recent studies emphasize quality improvement and statistical process control. This study benefits academics and practitioners investigating Statistical Process Control and offers a comprehensive overview of its role in Total Quality Management spanning the last 34 years. This research identifies the most influential authors, sources, affiliations, and countries in Statistical Process Control within Total Quality Management. Additionally, it illustrates the evolution of research in this field over time.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0280.055
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.297 · 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