Analysis

Skip to filters. View results.
View results

Filter results by

Search Help
Currently selected filters that can be removed
Remove Remove "Fortini, Marco" filter
Clear all

Keyword(s)

Subject

Year of publication

2 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.

Author(s)

7 facets displayed. 1 facets selected.
Sort Help
entries

Results

All (2)

All (2) ((2 results))

  • 1. A proposal for the problem of matching probabilities estimation in record linkage Archived
    Articles and reports: 11-522-X202200100001
    Description: Record linkage aims at identifying record pairs related to the same unit and observed in two different data sets, say A and B. Fellegi and Sunter (1969) suggest each record pair is tested whether generated from the set of matched or unmatched pairs. The decision function consists of the ratio between m(y) and u(y),probabilities of observing a comparison y of a set of k>3 key identifying variables in a record pair under the assumptions that the pair is a match or a non-match, respectively. These parameters are usually estimated by means of the EM algorithm using as data the comparisons on all the pairs of the Cartesian product ?=A×B. These observations (on the comparisons and on the pairs status as match or non-match) are assumed as generated independently of other pairs, assumption characterizing most of the literature on record linkage and implemented in software tools (e.g. RELAIS, Cibella et al. 2012). On the contrary, comparisons y and matching status in ? are deterministically dependent. As a result, estimates on m(y) and u(y) based on the EM algorithm are usually bad. This fact jeopardizes the effective application of the Fellegi-Sunter method, as well as automatic computation of quality measures and possibility to apply efficient methods for model estimation on linked data (e.g. regression functions), as in Chambers et al. (2015). We propose to explore ? by a set of samples, each one drawn so to preserve independence of comparisons among the selected record pairs. Simulations are encouraging.
    Release date: 2024-03-25
  • 2. Estimation of simple and correlated measurement variance when first and second interview use different survey modes Archived
    Articles and reports: 11-522-X20010016309
    Description:

    This paper discusses in detail issues dealing with the technical aspects of designing and conducting surveys. It is intended for an audience of survey methodologists.

    This paper proposes a method for estimating simple and correlated measurement variance components when a re-interview is available for a subsample of respondents. However, the two measurements cannot be considered as being collected under the same conditions and, therefore, are subject to different measurement error variance. This consideration seems more realistic when, in actuality, it is impossible to ensure that the same measurement conditions are implemented in the two interviews, as in the case when operational and budget constraints suggest adopting a different survey mode for the second interview.

    Release date: 2002-09-12
Stats in brief (0)

Stats in brief (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Articles and reports (2)

Articles and reports (2) ((2 results))

  • 1. A proposal for the problem of matching probabilities estimation in record linkage Archived
    Articles and reports: 11-522-X202200100001
    Description: Record linkage aims at identifying record pairs related to the same unit and observed in two different data sets, say A and B. Fellegi and Sunter (1969) suggest each record pair is tested whether generated from the set of matched or unmatched pairs. The decision function consists of the ratio between m(y) and u(y),probabilities of observing a comparison y of a set of k>3 key identifying variables in a record pair under the assumptions that the pair is a match or a non-match, respectively. These parameters are usually estimated by means of the EM algorithm using as data the comparisons on all the pairs of the Cartesian product ?=A×B. These observations (on the comparisons and on the pairs status as match or non-match) are assumed as generated independently of other pairs, assumption characterizing most of the literature on record linkage and implemented in software tools (e.g. RELAIS, Cibella et al. 2012). On the contrary, comparisons y and matching status in ? are deterministically dependent. As a result, estimates on m(y) and u(y) based on the EM algorithm are usually bad. This fact jeopardizes the effective application of the Fellegi-Sunter method, as well as automatic computation of quality measures and possibility to apply efficient methods for model estimation on linked data (e.g. regression functions), as in Chambers et al. (2015). We propose to explore ? by a set of samples, each one drawn so to preserve independence of comparisons among the selected record pairs. Simulations are encouraging.
    Release date: 2024-03-25
  • 2. Estimation of simple and correlated measurement variance when first and second interview use different survey modes Archived
    Articles and reports: 11-522-X20010016309
    Description:

    This paper discusses in detail issues dealing with the technical aspects of designing and conducting surveys. It is intended for an audience of survey methodologists.

    This paper proposes a method for estimating simple and correlated measurement variance components when a re-interview is available for a subsample of respondents. However, the two measurements cannot be considered as being collected under the same conditions and, therefore, are subject to different measurement error variance. This consideration seems more realistic when, in actuality, it is impossible to ensure that the same measurement conditions are implemented in the two interviews, as in the case when operational and budget constraints suggest adopting a different survey mode for the second interview.

    Release date: 2002-09-12
Journals and periodicals (0)

Journals and periodicals (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Date modified:

Search help

How do I use the filters and the search box?

  • You can initiate a search by entering keywords or selecting filters (e.g., under Subject, Geography, etc.) on the left side of the page.

  • Filters can be used together or in any combination. Each time you select a filter, the results on the page are updated.

  • To start a new search, click on the Clear all button above the search box or deselect each filter.

  • Specified keywords and filters appear above the search box. You can deselect any or all the tags to refine or clear your search.

How do I refine my search?

  • You can enter keywords in the search box. It is not necessary to use “+” or “, “ or “AND”.

  • You can delete some or all of the keywords from your search string.

  • Quotes around keywords limit the search to a specific phrase.

    • For example, “labour force survey” will limit results to products containing this phrase.

  • Use “or” between keywords to obtain results that contain one or more search terms.

    • For example, labour or­ force or survey will limit results to products containing any or all of these words.

How does the search work?

  • This search looks for results that have your query term in the title, description, subject, geography, product number or other information about the product.

    • For example, when searching the term ‘Diseases’, all results with the word ‘Diseases’ in the title, description or tagged the subject appear.

  • The text within an article or publication are not searched. For full text searching of articles, use the site search.

Sort help

How are the results ordered?

The Sort by feature provides three options:

  • By date – sorts results by product release date starting with the most recent.
  • By relevance is only needed or beneficial when you use the search box and submit a search query. Results are ordered by a combination of where the search term appears in the content, e.g., if it appears in the title, it likely means the product is more relevant to your search; how up to date or new the content in the product is; how popular the product is; and other factors.
  • By title – sorts results alphabetically.

Sort help

How are the results ordered?

The Sort by feature provides four options:

  • By date – sorts results by product release date starting with the most recent.
  • By most popular – gives priority to results that are most frequently selected by users, followed by the most recent.
  • By relevance is only needed or beneficial when you use the search box and submit a search query. Results are ordered by a combination of where the search term appears in the content, e.g., if it appears in the title, it likely means the product is more relevant to your search; how up to date or new the content in the product is; how popular the product is; and other factors.
  • By title – sorts results alphabetically.