Some Considerations in the Use of the Residual Method of Estimating Net Migration
使用残差法估计净迁移的若干考量AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:材料研究人口净迁移的核算误差,未明确涉及因果、面板或所列其他细分领域。
反馈分类问题使用残差法估计净迁移的若干考量AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Census net migration data and estimates of net migration obtained by the residual method, representing the difference between total population change and natural change during a period, are compared, and some general problems in the use of the residual method are discussed. Several residual methods—the vital statistics method and the forward, reverse, and average survival rate methods—are described, compared, and evaluated. On the basis of a symbolic model representing the population in an age group in terms of migration cohorts, it is shown how the various survival rate formulas, unlike the vital statistics method, fail to make an accurate allowance for the net migration of persons who die during the migration period, except under very restricted conditions of migration. The maximum theoretical errors in the use of the various survival rate formulas, resulting from the inability of survival rates to measure deaths occurring in an area exactly, and the theoretical errors under different conditions of timing of migration, are developed, and suggestions are given as to how the problem may be handled.