Conditional Properties of Some Estimators in Stratified Sampling
分层抽样中若干估计量的条件性质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:摘要聚焦调查抽样的条件推断,企业就业仅是总体实例,不足以归入面板或因果方向。
反馈分类问题分层抽样中若干估计量的条件性质AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The prediction properties of the stratified expansion estimator, the separate and combined ratio estimators, and the separate and combined regression estimators are studied under a model appropriate to a population stratified on a size variable. Several estimators of variance for each total estimator are considered, including standard ones from probability sampling theory, alternative choices derived from a superpopulation model, and the jackknife. The theory is tested in an empirical study using a real population. Earlier studies of the ratio and regression estimators under simple random sampling plans have illustrated that conditional properties of those estimators and of the linearization variance estimators that are often used with them can be much different and less desirable than unconditional properties. Whether similar results hold for stratified samples and estimators has been the subject of some debate. This article illustrates both theoretically and empirically that the use of stratification and reasonably large samples is not necessarily sufficient to produce reliable inferences. Over all stratified samples, estimators may be unbiased and confidence intervals may have nominal coverage probabilities, but conditional on certain sample characteristics this may not be true. To illustrate the prediction theory for the stratified expansion estimator, the combined ratio estimator, and the combined regression estimator, a simulation study was conducted using a population of iron and steel foundries. The variable y, whose population total was estimated, was employment in a particular month, and the auxiliary variable x was the employment one year earlier for each establishment. The population was divided into five size strata based on the auxiliary, and two sets of 2,000 stratified simple random samples were selected—one set with a total sample of 50 units and one with a total of 200. In samples that were extreme, as measured by the size of the stratified sample mean of x, the estimators of totals and the conventional variance estimators generally performed poorly. For the ratio and regression estimators variance estimators derived from model-based considerations and the jack-knife variance estimator had better conditional properties than the conventional choices but also had difficulties in extreme samples. The empirical results illustrate that subtle departures from a straight-line regression of y on x can lead to poor conditional inferences using either the combined ratio or regression estimators. The results give support to survey practices such as stratified systematic sampling, stratified balanced sampling, and fine substratification that restrict randomization beyond the degree of stratification studied here.