Measures of Association for Cross Classifications*
交叉分类的关联度量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:摘要讨论交叉分类的一般关联度量,未建立离散选择行为模型或因果识别框架,因此不选所列细分。
反馈分类问题交叉分类的关联度量AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
When populations are cross-classified with respect to two or more classifications or polytomies, questions often arise about the degree of association existing between the several polytomies. Most of the traditional measures or indices of association are based upon the standard chi-square statistic or on an assumption of underlying joint normality. In this paper a number of alternative measures are considered, almost all based upon a probabilistic model for activity to which the cross-classification may typically lead. Only the case in which the population is completely known is considered, so no question of sampling or measurement error appears. We hope, however, to publish before long some approximate distributions for sample estimators of the measures we propose, and approximate tests of hypotheses. Our major theme is that the measures of association used by an empirical investigator should not be blindly chosen because of tradition and convention only, although these factors may properly be given some weight, but should be constructed in a manner having operational meaning within the context of the particular problem.