跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

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。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究分层招聘率比较和共同参数估计,未明确建立因果识别或离散选择行为模型,故不强行归类。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者

共同相对风险的估计:平等就业中的应用

研究问题
在招聘岗位需按资格分层、申请者数据不足时,如何借助外部合格劳动力比例汇总招聘差异并检验共同效应?
方法与思路
作者以各职业少数群体录用人数的二项模型为基础,构造共同优势比的 Mantel–Haenszel 类比及最大似然估计和检验。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,论文提供估计量的大样本理论和两种共同优势比假设检验,并以两个案例及外部群体比例的敏感性分析说明。
阅读关注点
应核对题名相对风险与模型优势比的关系、二项近似的假设、共同参数检验,以及外部合格人群比例的不确定性处理。
阅读边界
仅据所给 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;不能混同相对风险与优势比,也不能将招聘率差异直接解释为歧视的因果效应。

原文摘要

To analyze hiring data in equal employment cases, the available positions should be stratified in accordance with the qualifications needed for the jobs. It is then necessary to combine the results of each stratum to obtain an overall test of equal hiring rates. Furthermore, a summary measure, which compares the hiring rate of a minority applicant to that of a majority one, is then estimated. Indeed, the relative risk measure is used by the government in assessing an employment practice for possible discriminatory impact. Sometimes reliable data on the applicants is unavailable, but an accurate estimate of the minority fraction, πi, of qualified persons in the appropriate labor market is obtainable from census or other external data. Usually the number of hires, t i, in each occupation is small relative to the number of applicants, which itself is a small fraction of the large external pool of qualified persons. Then the number of minority hires, x i, in each occupation can be regarded as a binomial variable with parameters ((t i, πi). This binomial model has been used to analyze hires in a single occupation where there was no need for stratification. This article develops analogs of the Mantel—Haenszel (1959) and maximum likelihood estimators of a common odds ratio for several 2 × 2 tables for the binomial situation. In addition to presenting the large sample theory of these estimators, two tests to check the validity of the assumption of a common odds ratio are developed. The methods are used to analyze data from two cases, one in which the assumption of a common odds ratio was appropriate and one in which it was not. The sensitivity of the results to the assumed values of πi, is also explored, and the assumptions implicit in the use of the binomial model for minority hires are given.

笔记与分组