← Back to home
Comparison · Infra & APIs

contagionchannels vs projoint

A side-by-side editorial comparison of contagionchannels and projoint — release velocity, themes, recent moves, and the top alternatives to consider.

Shared themes:r-package

contagionchannels vs projoint: at a glance

Featurecontagionchannelsprojoint
SectorInfra & APIsInfra & APIs
Velocity score0.02.5
Sparks · 30d00
Top themeseconometrics, contagion-analysis, cran-submission, r-packageconjoint-analysis, survey-research, qualtrics, cran
Last editorial update1h ago2h ago
WebsiteVisit →Visit →

What is contagionchannels?

Three releases in ten days, every one of them a CRAN reviewer's correction rather than a code change.

contagionchannels reached CRAN on 2026-05-08 with a methodology preprint behind it and a cross-quantilogram lineage visible in its citations. What the release feed does not contain is any description of what the package computes: all three entries document the submission process — a licence field reduced from GPL-3 plus file to plain GPL-3, an arXiv reference rewritten in canonical DOI form, and a base-graphics fallback adjusted on a reviewer's request.

Read the full contagionchannels trajectory →

What is projoint?

projoint spent a year on CRAN paperwork, then shipped a correctness fix it flagged itself.

projoint is an R package for analysing conjoint survey experiments, covering Qualtrics import, reshaping, and quantity-of-interest estimation with inter-rater reliability correction. Most of its release history is CRAN admission work — citation formats, DESCRIPTION fields, \value{} tags, vignette cleanups — with four tags backfilled within ninety seconds of each other on 15 July in non-monotonic version order, so neither tag order nor timestamps in this feed track the real sequence. The substantive releases are the ones fixing data-preparation bugs that silently corrupt estimates.

Read the full projoint trajectory →

contagionchannels vs projoint: editorial side-by-side

C
contagionchannels
INFRA · APIS
0.0

Three releases in ten days, every one of them a CRAN reviewer's correction rather than a code change.

◆ Current state

contagionchannels reached CRAN on 2026-05-08 with a methodology preprint behind it and a cross-quantilogram lineage visible in its citations. What the release feed does not contain is any description of what the package computes: all three entries document the submission process — a licence field reduced from GPL-3 plus file to plain GPL-3, an arXiv reference rewritten in canonical DOI form, and a base-graphics fallback adjusted on a reviewer's request.

◆ Where it's heading

There is no product trajectory to read here yet, only a submission one, and it is unusually well documented — each entry names the reviewer or check that prompted it and quotes the feedback verbatim. That transparency is the one signal available: the maintainer treats review rounds as releases worth publishing rather than squashing. Any judgement about direction will have to wait for a release that changes the package rather than its metadata.

◆ Prediction

With CRAN acceptance secured, the next release should be the first to carry actual methodological content; until one appears, there is not enough in these entries to say where the package is heading.

P
projoint
INFRA · APIS
2.5

projoint spent a year on CRAN paperwork, then shipped a correctness fix it flagged itself.

◆ Current state

projoint is an R package for analysing conjoint survey experiments, covering Qualtrics import, reshaping, and quantity-of-interest estimation with inter-rater reliability correction. Most of its release history is CRAN admission work — citation formats, DESCRIPTION fields, \value{} tags, vignette cleanups — with four tags backfilled within ninety seconds of each other on 15 July in non-monotonic version order, so neither tag order nor timestamps in this feed track the real sequence. The substantive releases are the ones fixing data-preparation bugs that silently corrupt estimates.

◆ Where it's heading

The maintainer is hardening the path from raw Qualtrics export to estimate, which is where conjoint analysis quietly goes wrong. Three separate releases fix that path: dropped respondent-level weights in organize_data(), repeated-task reshaping in reshape_projoint(), and choice-to-profile mapping in 1.1.3. Each fix now arrives with regression tests and stricter validation rather than just a patch, and 1.1.3 adds an explicit .choice_map so the mapping is auditable instead of inferred.

◆ Prediction

Expect the validation-and-regression-test pattern to keep extending across the import path, with releases continuing to arrive in bursts around CRAN submission rather than on a cadence.

Alternatives to contagionchannels and projoint

Other Infra & APIs products tracked by Sparkpulse, ranked by recent ship velocity. Each card links to a full editorial trajectory and lets you pivot into a head-to-head comparison with either contagionchannels or projoint.

See all contagionchannels alternatives → · See all projoint alternatives →

Recent activity from contagionchannels and projoint

Latest ship moves from both products, interleaved chronologically. ⚡ = editorial spark.

  1. 17d agoprojointExplicit .choice_map guards choice-to-profile mapping
  2. 1mo agoprojointCRAN submission housekeeping for DESCRIPTION and examples
  3. 1mo agoprojointCRAN formatting pass; minor make_projoint_data() fix
  4. 1mo agoprojointreshape_projoint() repeated-task bug fixed; validation tightened
  5. 1mo agoprojointCitation metadata updated with the CRAN DOI
  6. 3mo agocontagionchannelsv0.1.3 — first CRAN release
  7. 3mo agocontagionchannelsv0.1.2: switch arXiv reference in DESCRIPTION to canonical DOI form
  8. 3mo agocontagionchannelsv0.1.1: address CRAN reviewer feedback (License) + add arXiv reference
  9. 5mo agoprojointorganize_data() no longer drops respondent-level weights

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between contagionchannels and projoint?

Both compete on the same themes — r-package — within Infra & APIs. projoint is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. See the at-a-glance table above for a side-by-side breakdown of velocity, recent sparks, and editorial themes.

Is contagionchannels better than projoint?

Sparkpulse doesn't pick a winner — we score release velocity, not feature parity. projoint is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. For your specific use case, the alternatives sections above list other Infra & APIs products to evaluate alongside.

What are the best alternatives to contagionchannels?

Top contagionchannels alternatives in Infra & APIs are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "contagionchannels alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/contagionchannels for the full list with editorial commentary on each.

What are the best alternatives to projoint?

Top projoint alternatives in Infra & APIs are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "projoint alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/projoint for the full list with editorial commentary on each.