Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of item parcels has been a matter of debate since the earliest use of factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Here, we review the arguments that have been levied both for and against the use of parcels and discuss the relevance of these arguments in light of the building body of empirical evidence investigating their performance. We discuss the many advantages of parcels that some researchers find attractive and highlight, too, the potential problems that ill-informed use can incur. We argue that no absolute pro or con stance is warranted. Parcels are an analytic tool like any other. There are circumstances in which parceling is useful and those when it is not. We emphasize the precautions that should be taken when creating item parcels and interpreting model results based on parcels. Finally, we review and compare several proposed strategies for parcel building and suggest directions for further research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.092 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".