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:摘要围绕调查抽样的入样概率、权重与方差估计展开,未涉及因果加权识别或其他所列专门方向,因此不作细分归类。

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
F. Yates
P. M. Grundy

分层内按规模比例进行不放回抽样

研究问题
分层内按规模比例不放回抽样时,按规模倒数加权为何产生总量估计偏差,怎样计算真实入样概率并改进方差估计?
方法与思路
作者以数值例子研究总量及误差估计偏差,讨论层内样本量为二或三时的入样概率计算,并构造新的无偏方差估计量。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,常用总量公式在示例中的偏差通常很小,提出无偏方差估计量,并为层内抽取两个单位给出修正规模度量的方法。
阅读关注点
应核对逐次抽取概率与最终入样概率的区别、无偏方差估计的构造,以及规模修正与效率比较对层内样本量的限制。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要;偏差很小是数值示例的陈述,具体例子和效率标准未提供,二单位修正不能直接推广到任意样本量。

原文摘要

Summary In selection with probability proportional to size x from within strata without replacement, the usual method of selection gives rise to bias in the estimate of the total of a variate y derived by weighting the units by weights proportional to 1/x. By means of numerical examples it is shown that the amount of this bias is usually quite trivial. If, however, unbiased estimates are required, the true total probabilities of selection of the different units can be calculated easily for samples of 2, and with considerably more labour for samples of 3. The bias in the ordinary formula for the estimation of error is also investigated, and the formula is shown to be reasonably accurate. Horvitz and Thompson have given an unbiased estimator of the error variance, but this is shown to be inefficient and a new unbiased estimator is given. A method of revising the size measures so that with the usual method of selection the true total probabilities of selection are proportional to the original size measures is given for samples of 2. Horvitz and Thompson’s solution of this problem does not appear to give satisfactory approximations in the cases met with in practice. The selection of successive members of a sample with arbitrary sets of probabilities chosen solely so that the total probabilities shall be proportional to the original size measures, which has been advocated in various quarters, is criticized.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文