Post-Stratification: A Modeler's Perspective
后分层:建模者的视角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:摘要研究调查加权及贝叶斯后分层,未明确涉及因果推断、面板或所列其他细分方向。
后分层:建模者的视角AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Post-stratification is a common technique in survey analysis for incorporating population distributions of variables into survey estimates. The basic technique divides the sample into post-strata, and computes a post-stratification weight w ih = rP h /r h for each sample case in post-stratum h, where r h is the number of survey respondents in post-stratum h, P h is the population proportion from a census, and r is the respondent sample size. Survey estimates, such as functions of means and totals, then weight cases by w h . Variants and extensions of the method include truncation of the weights to avoid excessive variability and raking to a set of two or more univariate marginal distributions. Literature on post-stratification is limited and has mainly taken the randomization (or design-based) perspective, where inference is based on the sampling distribution with population values held fixed. This article develops Bayesian model-based theory for the method. A basic normal post-stratification model is introduced which yields the post-stratified mean as the posterior mean, and a posterior variance that incorporates adjustments for estimating variances. Modifications are then proposed for small sample inference, based on (a) changing the Jeffreys prior for the post-stratum parameters to borrow strength across post-strata, and (b) ignoring partial information about the post-strata. In particular, practical rules for collapsing post-strata to reduce posterior variance are developed and compared with frequentist approaches. Methods for two post-stratifying variables are also considered. Raking sample counts and respondent counts is shown to provide approximate Bayesian inferences when the margins of the two post-stratifiers are available but their joint distribution is not. When the joint distribution is available, raking effectively ignores the information it contains, and hence can be compared with other techniques that ignore information such as collapsing. For inference about means, it is suggested that raking is most appropriate when post-stratum means have an additive or near-additive structure, whereas collapsing is indicated when interactions are present.