Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Projects have high stakes in how they are categorized. The final place of a project within a classification scheme depends on the inclusion or exclusion of certain classification criteria. So far, many researchers and organizations have used a variety classification criteria to construct different project classification schemes. However, most of these classification criteria have been taken for granted and the process of selecting them to categorize projects still remains a black box. The purpose of this paper is to open the black box of classification process and explain how it is reflected in picking the classification criteria. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on insights from cognitive psychology’s literature, the authors examine the main views of classification process to provide insight into the unknown or implicit reasons that one might have to pick particular attributes as project classification criteria. Findings The authors argue that classification occurs in the eye of the beholder; it is not only the project’s features per se but also the classifier’s “goals, ideal and preference” or “knowledge of causal relations” that are reflected in the classification criteria. Research limitations/implications By elaborating the classification process, the authors brought the project context into the big picture of classification and provide a more rational, and coherent picture of how project classification works. This contributes to a theoretical blind spot, raised by prior researchers, related to the selection of project classification criteria. Practical implications Understanding classification processes will reduce the ambiguities, inconsistencies and multiple interpretations of project categories and help practitioners increase their projects’ visibility and legitimacy within an already established classification scheme. These implications help organizations in addressing some of the main obstacles to using categorization in project management practice. Originality/value The review of prior work in the category research literature and the insights from this paper will provide project management scholars with a useful toolbox for future research on project classification, which has long been understudied.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".