Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Structural change assessment Stephen Catterall 8th December 2009 Methods The purpose of this section is to compare the TV distribution obtained in the survey with thirteen reference TV distributions representing various hypothetical scenarios. A suitable means of comparison of TV distributions is to plot quantile functions in each case. These plots capture all relevant information in the distributions whilst avoiding the calculation of summary statistics such as the mean, which may not be appropriate in this context. In order to account for sampling variability, bootstrapping is used, which is the only possible method given the available data. Nonparametric bootstrapping is used for the survey scenario, taking 1000 samples of size 133 (with replacement) from the observed set of TV values. Parametric bootstrapping is used for the hypothetical scenarios, taking 1000 samples of size 133 from a multinomial distribution with probabilities as specified in Table 12. The results of the bootstrapping for a scenario comprise 1000 quantile functions. These may be summarised by envelope curves at the 2.5, 50 and 97.5 percentiles so as to make interpretation easier. 1.0 0.5 0.0 TV median 1.5 2.0 Results Figure 2 below shows envelope curves for the survey scenario and the thirteen hypothetical scenarios. The light coloured lines indicate the 2.5 percentile and 97.5 percentile, while the darkly coloured line indicates the median (50 precentile). A summary of the medians for each scenario is provided in Figure 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 scenario 9 10 11 12 13 survey Figure 1. TV median values for various scenarios. The circle marks the median of the medians of the 1000 bootstrapped samples for each scenario. The vertical bar indicates the corresponding 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles (so giving a measure of the associated variability). 0.8 1.0 0.8 TV 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 scenario 8 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 TV TV 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 probability probability scenario 9 scenario 10 scenario 11 scenario 12 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 probability scenario 13 survey scenario 0.4 0.6 probability 0.8 1.0 1.0 TV TV 0.0 probability 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 probability 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 probability 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 probability 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 scenario 7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 scenario 6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 scenario 5 TV 0.2 0.6 probability TV 0.0 0.4 probability TV 0.2 0.2 probability 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 TV 0.0 scenario 4 probability 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 TV 0.6 scenario 3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 probability 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 TV 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 TV 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 TV scenario 2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 TV scenario 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 probability Figure 2. Comparison of the survey scenario with the 13 hypothetical scenarios. The hypothetical scenarios are ordered as in Table 12. Discussion The survey scenario has a relatively large amount of sampling variability, in comparison to the hypothetical scenarios. This is not really surprising as most of the hypothetical scenarios are artificially constrained so as to represent some kind of extreme. Still, scenarios 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13 have very low variability and could not be described as realistic, though they are useful reference points. Of the remaining scenarios, scenario 3 seems to be the most similar to the survey scenario. However, none of the hypothetical scenarios have the large proportions of TV=0 and TV=2 present in the survey scenario.