Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
From | Partho Sarkar <partho.ss+lists@gmail.com> |
To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
Subject | Re: st: Selecting a sample to compromise between significant size and geographical dispersion |
Date | Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:01:26 +0530 |
Thanks for the prompt response Marten! So there IS a trade-off it seems, right? If I set a certain cut-ff level of market size, I get a certain geographical pattern. What I want is a way to visualise this relationship- e.g., a table or graph that would show the pairs of cut-off size versus a dispersion "index" , so that I could then choose the "optimal" (subjectively) cut-off. Or doesn't this make sense? By the way, I wonder if this could be handled through Stata's Survey commands, which I have never gone into. Thanks again. Partho On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com> wrote: > What is the population that you want to generalize to? My suspicion is > that as soon as you have defined that, you'll see that there is no > trade-off. For example: if the population of interest is markets with > more than median trading volume than the geographic dispersion is > given by that constraint. Having two conflicting criteria suggests to > me that your definition of the population is still too fuzzy. > > > Hope this helps, > Maarten > * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/