Article contents
Regional Subsampling and Statistical Inference in Forested Habitats
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
An attempt to employ probabilistic subsampling in a wooded study area is reviewed. Errors committed in attempts to test hypotheses about statistical associations are identified, and more suitable procedures are suggested. The site-location potential of regional subsampling is considered. On theoretical grounds it is concluded that regional subsampling employing small subunits in areas of low site density is probably inefficient and biased when used as a search procedure.
- Type
- Comments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1979
References
References Cited
Conover, W. J.
1974
Some reasons for not using the Yates continuity correction on 2 x 2 contingency tables.
Journal of the American Statistical Association
69:374–376.Google Scholar
Grizzle, J. E.
1967
Continuity correction in the x Mest for 2 x 2 tables.
The American Statistician
28:28–32.Google Scholar
Lovis, W. A.
1976
Quarter sections and forests: an example of probability sampling in the northeastern woodlands.
American Antiquity
41:364–372.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. W.
1975
Archaeological research as cluster sampling.
In Sampling in archaeology, edited by Mueller, James W., pp. 33–41. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Plackett, R. L.
1964
The continuity correction in 2 x 2 tables.
Biometrika
51:327–337.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H.
1975
Non-site sampling in archaeology: up the creek without a site?
In Sampling in archaeology, edited by Mueller, James W., pp. 61–81. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
- 15
- Cited by