MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W612186252

Six Sigma methodology in automobile industry.

2006· article· en· W612186252 on OpenAlex
Muhammad. Hasib

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

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryManufacturing engineeringComputer scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a mature industry like the Truck industry, competition is getting harder and harder. A few strong manufactures are doing there very best to cut cost in order to gain market shares from the others within the market. To be able to generate cost Savings Company must be flexible & prepare to adapt & implement new ideas. This thesis was carried out at the International Truck & Engine Corporation Garland Assembly Plant, Texas, which employs 1000 employees. The Plant Assembles Heavy duty & Severe service Trucks. The purpose of this Research is to Investigate, Study, & analyzes the existing process of steering wheel Alignment in order to give recommendations on what actions are needed for efficiently implementing six-sigma in the organization to Improve Process. The Analysis aims to reduce/eliminate customer complaints, PTD (Prior to delivery-Dealers) warranty & 0 to 90 days warranty (Customer) costs caused by Steering Wheel Alignment claims. Six-Sigma methodologies will be utilized to identify and correct the most complex problems. This product quality innovation methodology will provide a structured, disciplined, rigorous approach to process improvement consisting of five phases (DMAIC) D&barbelow; efine, M&barbelow;easure, A&barbelow;nalyze, I&barbelow;mprove, C&barbelow;ontrol where each phase is linked logically to the previous & next phase.Dept. of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2006 .H372. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-01, page: 0436. Thesis (M.A.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2006.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.192 · 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