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:摘要明确使用生育和死亡率时间序列模型开展人口预测,并构造多种人口指标的预测概率区间。

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
Ronald D. Lee

美国人口的随机预测:超越高、中、低情景

研究问题
传统高、中、低人口情景能否给不同人口指标一致的概率解释,如何构造相互一致的预测概率区间?
方法与思路
作者结合数理人口学与时间序列方法,用美国历史数据估计生育和死亡随机模型,再以随机矩阵乘积作人口预测。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,该方法提供一致的概率区间,并显示传统情景对老年人口规模与抚养比不确定性的刻画存在明显差异。
阅读关注点
应核对生育死亡模型、联合随机结构、人口递推及区间构造,并检查与人口普查情景比较时的口径和基准。
阅读边界
仅据OpenAlex索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;这是文中历史预测及比较,不能视为当前人口预测或已验证的长期覆盖率。

原文摘要

Conventional population projections use “high,” “medium,” and “low” scenarios to indicate uncertainty, but probability interpretations are rarely given, and in any event the resulting ranges for vital rates, births, deaths, age groups sizes, age ratios, and population size cannot possibly be probabilistically consistent with one another. This article presents and implements a new method for making stochastic population forecasts that provide consistent probability intervals. We blend mathematical demography and statistical time series methods to estimate stochastic models of fertility and mortality based on U.S. data back to 1900 and then use the theory of random-matrix products to forecast various demographic measures and their associated probability intervals to the year 2065. Our expected total population sizes agree quite closely with the Census medium projections, and our 95 percent probability intervals are close to the Census high and low scenarios. But Census intervals in 2065 for ages 65+ are nearly three times as broad as ours, and for 85+ are nearly twice as broad. In contrast, our intervals for the total dependency and youth dependency ratios are more than twice as broad as theirs, and our ratio for the elderly dependency ratio is 12 times as great as theirs. These items have major implications for policy, and these contrasting indications of uncertainty clearly show the limitations of the conventional scenario-based methods.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文