Use of Variance Components in the Analysis of Hog Prices in Two Markets
两个市场生猪价格分析中的方差分量应用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：摘要明确分析两个价格序列、时间效应与日价格相关性，因此与时间序列方向直接相关。
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
两个市场生猪价格分析中的方差分量应用
- 研究问题
- 如何分析两个市场生猪价格的比值及其变动来源，并在日价格存在相关性、误差方差具有复合结构时开展检验？
- 方法与思路
- 作者用方差分析与 F 检验分析按月汇总的价格比值，采用 Smith–Satterthwaite 方法近似复合误差的自由度。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称比值分析中多数与年份有关的交互作用及月份固定效应显著，并讨论方差分量标准误与后续采样计划。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对原始日价格与月汇总的关系、相关性对检验的影响，以及复合误差、自由度近似和方差分量估计的处理。
- 阅读边界
- 仅据版本未注明的索引摘要；作者指出价格缺乏独立性是重要缺陷，摘要未提供检验数值，替代模型的符号也需核对原文。
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.