Thanks for the responses to my earlier posted message re setting of
priors.
I am still working on my gender data (looking at gender, turnout and
voting outcomes in NZ elections 1893-1954)- though take on board that
the limited variation between the groups may reduce the reliability of
existing ecological methods such as EI. As Stephen Voss suggested, I
certainly did find that the Palmquist inflation factor was very large,
and the standard errors were relatively high (eg:0.0147 for estimated
Female turnout of 0.9014).
What I have found since then is that the non-parametric version of EzI
seems to be giving good results where I can compare them with the truth.
eg: for the 1919 election the true values are
Female aggregate turnout=0.792 (min 0.655, max=0.882)
Male aggregate turnout=0.750 (min 0.539, max 0.871)
and the estimates using the non-parametric version with defaults are
BetaB (female) = 0.7760, 0.0166
BetaW (male) = 0.7661, 0.0157
I can slightly improve these estimates by shifting the defaults.
My question is - has anyone else used the non-parametric version, and/or
have any comments on its advantages and shortcomings?
Once again, any pointers would be much appreciated as I am not a
statistician and new to the area.
Thank you.
Linda
Linda Moore
Masters Student
History Department
University of Canterbury
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND
lmm72(a)student.canterbury.ac.nz
-
ei mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
List Address: ei(a)latte.harvard.edu
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/listis.cgi?info=ei
