Use of Variance Components in the Analysis of Hog Prices in Two Markets
利用方差分量分析两个市场的生猪价格AI 解读 ↓
← 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：摘要虽使用价格序列，但核心是农业市场的方差分量分析，未明确建立所列宏观时间序列或金融计量研究框架。
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
利用方差分量分析两个市场的生猪价格
- 研究问题
- 如何分析辛辛那提与路易斯维尔生猪价格比率中的固定效应和随机变异，并处理日价格相关及复合误差方差对显著性检验的影响？
- 方法与思路
- 作者对1937—1941年月度汇总的市场日价格比率作方差分析，与价格差分析比较，并以Smith—Satterthwaite近似处理复合误差的自由度。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，多数涉及年份的交互作用和月份固定效应显著；同时指出日价格相关导致独立性不足，并讨论方差分量标准误与未来采集设计。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对价格比率的构造、固定与随机效应划分、相关性对检验的影响，以及近似自由度的条件；摘要中新检验的数学记号需查阅原PDF。
- 阅读边界
- 仅据OpenAlex索引摘要，稿件版本未注明。新检验记号可能有提取损失，须核对原PDF；摘要无效应大小，也不能据显著性作因果判断或推断刊本变化。
原文摘要
This paper discusses various methods of analyzing the ratios of the daily hog prices at Cincinnati and Louisville and compares the results obtained with those previously given for the differences between the two price series. The data consisted of the prices for each of two weight classes on each the five complete market days of the week (Monday through Friday) averaged for each month throughout the period 1937-1941. Price ratios were used because of the high correlation which seemed to exist between the price differences and the price level. The analysis of variance was used to make statements about the consistency of the results. The paper discusses the assumptions behind the analysis of variance and how well these assumptions are met with these data. In general, the most serious defect in making tests of significance is a lack of independence due to the intracorrelations existing between daily prices. The F-test was used to test for the existence of consistent fixed effects and to determine significant sources of random variation. Most of these tests were complicated by the composite nature of the error variances. An approximation method of H. Fairfield Smith and F. E. Satterthwaite was used to approximate the error degrees of freedom in such cases. Mention is made of a suggested new model which uses x 2 as a test criterion instead of F. For the ratios, most of the interactions with years were significant; also, the month fixed effects. A brief discussion is also included of the problem of estimating the standard errors of the variance components, and of the uses of these variance components in formulating plans for future collection of data.