0 views

Uploaded by missinu

Exam ECON301B 2002 Commented

- An Optimised Method to Determine the Degree of Acetylation of Chitin and Chitosan by FTIR Spectroscopy
- EXPLORING THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS ON BORO RICE YIELDS OF RAJSHAHI DISTRICT IN BANGLADESH.
- Pensri Et Al Biopsychosocial Factors and Perceived Disability in Saleswomen With Concurrent Low Back Pain
- GInaFit Ensayo Modelos
- TPTM6495 S1 2012 - Practice Exam Answers
- 06 05 Adequacy of Regression Models
- Strain transfer function
- examples_Econometrics.docx
- Coefficient of Determination and Interpretation of Determination Coefficient
- Barrons Data Analysis 1 (1)
- Effect of the Learning Support and the Use of Project Management Tools
- Regression Analysis and Model Building PPT @ BEC DOMS
- A Bid Mark-up Multi-Factor Evaluation Process Bidding Strategy in Egypt
- NOTICE_HONS_ADM_2018_19_250918
- 0321757416_Sullivan_Barrel_pp001-008.pdf
- 24Slides Template 2
- The Macro of PO
- Instrumentation Science & Technology 38 (6) (2010) 436-447
- predicting maximal grip strength using hand circumference.pdf
- Stats lab 2

You are on page 1of 11

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Exam:

ECON 301B - APPLIED STATISTICS AND ECONOMETRICS

Date of exam: Monday, 9 December 2002

Time for exam:

9 a.m. - 3 p.m

Resources allowed: All printed books and private notes as well as

calculators.

All questions should be answered..

The grade scale is A,B,C,D,Fail (with A as best grade) .

Comments are given in arial font after each question.

Some of the views expressed in the comments could have been different. It is

the coherence and quality in the argument that matters.

Scientific journals constitute the medium of communication between scientists, and

also the memory (storage) of science. The economics of (scientific) journals is

interesting. Bergstrom1 argues that journals owned by private publishers are grossly

overpriced, and he recommends several actions to reduce the large profits made by

these publishers. Bergstrom provides data to substantiate his case. There are 180

economic journals in his database, of which 16 are published by scholarly societies

such as the American Economic Association. These 16 journals are published on a

non-profit basis, as opposed to the remaining journals that have private publishers. We

shall concentrate on the following variables:

P

Y

C

A

N

S

: Number of libraries subscribing to the journal.

: Total number of times papers in the journal were cited in 1998.

: Age of the journal.

: Number of pages in the journal in 1998.

: Binary variable (dummy); 1 if non-profit (scholarly society), 0 otherwise.

Bergstrom, T.C. 2000. Free Labor for Costly Journals? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 15: 183198.

2

It is rare that an article in an economics journal is as explicit as Bergstrom in its

policy recommendations aimed at reducing the profits of economic agents, but

Bergstrom clearly has a dual role: as disinterested analyst, and as an academic

economist with an economic interest. In his section What can we do, Bergstrom

suggests: (i) To expand the much cheaper and also generally better non-profit journals

owned by professional societies. (ii) To support new electronic journals. And (iii) to

punish overpriced journals by cancelling library subscriptions, defecting editorial

boards, not sending good papers to these journals, and refuse to referee papers from

them.

(a)

The circles represent non-profit journals. Comment on the graph.

Price is clearly rising with number of pages for both private and non-profit

journals, but apparently more so for private journals. The graph shows that

variability in price increases with number of parameters. Whether price is

linearly related to number of parameters is hard to tell. Too much noise in the

graph!

(b)

Figure 1 does not show a relationship between P and N that agrees well with

the classical assumptions behind OLS. Why? Explain from the figure why

LP ln( P) might be close to linear in LN ln( N ) , and that the classical

assumptions might be better satisfied on this log-log scale. Use L as a prefix to

denote logged variables throughout.

The OLS assumption of homoscedasticity is clearly not met for price versus

number of pages, according to Figure 1. The log-transformation will stretch

the lower end and contract the upper end of variation. It is concave! To take

log of price will counteract the obvious higher variation at higher number of

pages. To also take log of number of pages will hopefully preserve, and

perhaps improve on the possible linear pattern in the graph.

(c)

A matrix of pair-wise scatter plots for logged variables is given in Figure 2 for

non-profit journals, and in Figure 3 for privately published journals. Regarding

LP as the response variable, how does this variable seem to respond to the

other variables? You might comment further on the plots, but be brief.

The upper right corners in Figures 2 and 3 show the scatter of LP versus LN

. The scatter in Figure 2 has a small number of points, and one must therefore

guard against over-interpretation. The scatter in Figure 3 shows a fairly nice

linear and homoscedastic scatter for the 164 private journals, perhaps with

slightly more variability in the lower end. This pattern is not contradicted by

the scatter in Figure 2, other than the variability there seems larger at the

upper end. Both these possible violations of homoscedasticity might be small

sample illusions.

Upper rows in both graphs, from left to right: LP seems uncorrelated with LA

and nearly so with LC . The latter is surprising, since many citations adds

value to the journal. But this effect might be masked by other variables we

2

3

will see from the regressions. LC is positively correlated with both LA and

LN . There is thus potential for masking the effect of LC . Figures 2 and 3

show no reasons not to analyse these data by linear methods (regression) on

the log scale for the variables price, age, citations and number of pages.

(d)

LP 1 2 S 3 LN u ,

where u is a stochastic error term, and S is the dummy variable defined on

page 1. The OLS results for this regression are given in Table 1 in the appendix.

Explain what is meant by R-squared and Adj R-squared. What are the

interpretation of 2 and 3 respectively?

its mean that is explained by the linear regression (is recovered as variation

in the predicted response due to variation in the explanatory variables) within

the sample. R 2 regressionSS / residualSS . Adj R-squared is adjusted for the

number of covariates in the regression by adding covariates that have no

theoretical correlation with the response, Adj R-squared will tend to (but not

necessarily) decrease while R-squared will increase (or remain unchanged, in

the unlikely event that the empirical correlation between the current residual

and the new covariate is precisely zero).

2 measures the effect on the expected value of LP of a journal being nonprofit versus private, given the same number of pages. The empirical result is

that a non-profit journal is priced at about exp(-1.18)=.31 of a private journal

with the same number of pages. 3 measures the price elasticity with respect

to number of pages. The elasticity in this model is assumed the same for both

private and non-profit journals.

(e)

LP 1 2 S 3 LN 4 LA 5 LC 6 ( S LN ) 7 ( S LA) 8 ( S LC

) 9 LN 2 u

Would you interpret 2 differently for this model than for the model in (d)? The

OLS results for this model are given in Table 2, where SLN S LN etc., and

LN 2 LN 2 . Calculate a 95% confidence interval for 3 . What is your point

estimate of the elasticity e ln( P ) / ln( N ) for private journals of median

number of pages, LN 6.54 ? What is the estimated elasticity for a non-profit

journal of the same size?

2 does not have quite the same basic interpretation. The expected

difference in log price for two other wise identical journals, one being nonprofit and the other private, is now 2 6 LN 7 LA 8 LC , and not only 2 . It

is surprising that this estimated effect now seems positive: that non-profit

journals are more expensive than private. But note the large standard error.

The effect is not statistically significant!

3

3 t SE 4.14 1.97 2.47 4.14

4.87 9.01,

quantile in the t-distribution with 171 degrees of freedom.

The estimated elasticity e ln( P ) / ln( N ) is 4.14 2 .39 6.54 .96 for

private journals, and .96 .49 .47 for non-profit journals of median size.

(f)

maximize profit, and the more cited a journal is the more valuable it is.

Comment on the estimated signs of 5 and 8 . Discuss also the estimated signs

for the other coefficients.

effects are non-significant, though. That LC seems to have a negative effect

is surprising. I would expect the private publishers to try to maximize profit,

and thus to price much cited journals higher. That S LC seems to have a

negative effect makes sense. Relative to the private, the non-profit journals

would tend to be relatively cheaper the more valuable (more cited) the journal

is everything else equal.

The sign for S is already discussed. The signs for LN , SLN and LN 2 must

be discussed jointly, say by looking at the elastiticity that has been

considered. What remains are the signs for LA and SLA . The first is

significantly negative. This is a bit surprising since older journals that have

survived might be more valuable than newer journals (everything else equal),

and private publishers should then be expected to price them higher. That

SLA has a positive sign, which is non-significant, might also be surprising. It is

hard to see why non-profit journals get relatively more expensive than private

ones the older they are.

(g)

LP 1 3 LN 4 LA 5 LC 8 (S LC ) 9 LN 2 u

The results by OLS are given in Table 3. Which of the three models considered

so far would you prefer? Discuss and test!

As measured by Adj R-squared, model (g) is the superior of the three. It fits

the data much better than model (d), and only slightly worse than model (e)

(as measured by R-squared, and equivalently by Root MSE). Model (g) is

simpler and slightly easier to interpret than model (e). In model (g), S effects

price only through differential effect of citation. It is nice to isolate the effect of

the most interesting covariate, and it is nice to get strong significance (and

expected sign) for this covariate. This is the case in model (g). This discussion

leads to model (g) as the preferred one.

The three models are only partially nested: (g) is obtained from (e) by setting

three coefficients to zero, and (d) is obtained from (e) by setting 6 coefficients

to zero. But model (d) cannot be obtained from (g) by setting coefficients to

4

5

zero. Since model (d) obviously is inferior, we only test model (g) versus

model (e). The test problem is H 0 : 2 6 7 0 versus at least one of the

coefficients being non-zero. The F-statistic is

F 57.591 56.758 /(8 5) / .576 .482 . This number is compared to the Fdistribution with 3 and 171 degrees of freedom, and the conclusion is that

there is hardly evidence for claiming one or more of the three coefficients

being non-zero ( H 0 is not rejected at any meaningful level).

(h)

Table 4 gives the variance inflation factors for model (g). What do these

numbers tell you? Suggest a change of variables that will reduce the unwanted

effects of large inflation factors, but without changing the essence of model (g).

The two first VIFs are terribly high. They tell us that LN 2 and LN are strongly

linearly related, as they certainly must be. That the p-value for LN (testing its

coefficient being non-zero) is as low as 12% is really impressing in the

presence of this strong colinearity. The colinearity could be reduced by

replacing LN 2 by LN 2* LN 2 LN 2 | LN , which is the residual obtained by

regressing LN on LN 2 by OLS. This would alter the coefficient for LN and

also its SE, but the coefficient for LN 2 would not be changed. The fit (Rsquared, sums of squares) would remain unchanged.

(i)

Returning to Bergstroms paper. Do you agree that private journals are overpriced? Based on your preferred model, describe the pricing policy and profit

generation in private journals.

indicate that private publishers price journals relatively higher than society

publishers the more valuable the journal is as measured by citations. With

non-profit journals as a standard, private journals are overpriced and more

so the more they are cited.

(j)

Are economists in academia loyal to their non-profit journals in the sense that

University libraries are more prone to subscribe to a journal published by a

scholarly society when everything else is equal? To address this question, the

following model is considered.

LY 1 2 S 3 LP 4 LN 5 LA 6 LC u

The OLS results for this model are given in Table (5). Discuss the issue raised.

Note that the supplier side in the journal market is a mixed bag. Non-profit

journals are generally priced according to real production cost, with the hard

work of editing and refereeing done on a no-pay basis. These journals are thus

priced with little regard to what could have been their market price.

The signs for LP , LN , LA , and LC do make sense. However, libraries do

seem to subscribe less to non-profit journals than privately published ones,

everything else equal. This effect is non-significant. It could be due to heavier

marketing by private publishers. For private publishers, we do also have a

6

problem with simultaneity. Private publishers are likely to fix their price in

response to what they perceive as the demand function. A privately published

journal of the same quality as a society journal is thus likely to be priced

higher, see point (i). The number of subscribers would then be reduced, and it

is thus likely that subscription is higher for non-profit journals than private

journals of the same quality.

(k)

Inspecting the empirical residuals from model (j), a pattern is noted. The pattern

seems to be

This formula is obtained by regression. Several regression models were

attempted to find a reasonable model. Explain why this finding indicates

heteroscedasticity. How can the formula be used to construct weights for a

weighted regression? The results from such a weighted regression is given in

Table 6. Discuss the pros and cons of using this particular weighted regression

rather than the OLS. Which of the 95% confidence intervals for 2 given in

Table 5 and Table 6 respectively will you prefer?

Under homoscedasticity, we should have no relation between any of the

2

covariates and 2 Eu 2 or with E ln(u ) . The given relation indicates that

non-linearity, one might replace u 2 by 2 in the relation, and obtain

2 exp 2.3 0.82 LA 0.42 LC , and the inverse of this as the weight in weighted

regression.

The pros: The weighted regression provides a better fit, as measured by Rsquared and F. It also reduces standard errors. The cons: the particular

weights have been found by running several regressions. Such fishing trips

might bring home a catch, but not necessarily bring out a pattern in the

variance that prevails in repeated sampling whatever that could be in the

particular case. The chosen weights might therefore represent some degree

of over-fitting to the data. On balance, however, we have a relatively large

sample and a distinct improvement in the fit. I will therefore vote for the

weighted regression, and my confidence interval of choice for 2 is .46, .21

(l)

Our data consists of 180 journals in economics. This is pretty much the

collection of academic journals in this field that use the English language. This

collection is thus not a random sample from some existing population. Explain

the statistical meaning of a confidence interval, say that in point (e), and discuss

the difficulties involved in this interpretation since we do not sample in a

simplistic sense.

experiment are meaningful: In repetitions, the method produce intervals that

covers the true value in a fraction of cases that agrees with the degree of

7

confidence. This interpretation might be extended slightly. The particular

study might not be reproducible by drawing an independent sample. But, in

studies where the assumed model indeed represents the uncertainties

involved, the fraction of studies leading to their produced confidence intervals

covering the true values (which might vary from study to study) will match the

degree of confidence (which is kept fixed) in the long run.

Repeated sampling makes no sense in the present study. The question is

whether the assumed model, say (e), correctly represents the uncertainties

involved. I have my doubts. There are, for example, reasons why some

journals are privately published and others are society journals. The society

journals tend to be more general in scope than the private ones. It is easier to

carve out a market segment in a limited area, say labour economics of

fisheries economics, and there establishing a private journal with a dominating

position, than in the more general areas. Perhaps such conditions are more

important for the pricing than the covariates in (e).

The big question is rather: to what extent are our results externally valid? That

is, to what extent do our results have validity for extrapolation in time,

language area and field of science? It is hard to give a good answer here. The

best approach might be to study the journals in a few other fields of science

and see if the same pattern emerges.

APPENDIX

(Output based on Stata)

price_NonProfit

price_Private

2120

20

167

2632

2.5

3.5

4.5

8

7

6

LP

5

4

4.5

4

3.5

LA

3

2.5

9

8

7

LC

6

5

8

7

LN

6

5

4

Figure 2. Scatter plots for logged variables. The plot for LC (on the y-axis)

versus LN is, for example, found in row 3 and column 4. Non-profit journals.

8

8

6

LP

4

2

5

4

LA

3

2

10

8

6

LC

4

2

8

7

LN

6

5

2

10

Source |

SS

df

MS

-------------+-----------------------------Model | 36.8357611

2 18.4178806

Residual | 119.232662

177 .673630857

-------------+-----------------------------Total | 156.068423

179 .871890631

Number of obs

F( 2,

177)

Prob > F

R-squared

Adj R-squared

Root MSE

=

=

=

=

=

=

180

27.34

0.0000

0.2360

0.2274

.82075

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------price

LP |

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------society

S | -1.183172

.2207267

-5.36

0.000

-1.618767

-.7475775

pages

LN |

.812689

.1315476

6.18

0.000

.5530854

1.072293

_cons |

.3748265

.8661977

0.43

0.666

-1.334578

2.084231

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1. Regression results for model (d). OLS. Stata output with variable text added

(price as a reminder that LP is ln( price) etc.).

10

Source |

SS

df

MS

-------------+-----------------------------Model | 57.5912891

8 7.19891114

Residual | 98.4771338

171 .575889671

-------------+-----------------------------Total | 156.068423

179 .871890631

Number of obs

F( 8,

171)

Prob > F

R-squared

Adj R-squared

Root MSE

=

=

=

=

=

=

180

12.50

0.0000

0.3690

0.3395

.75887

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------price

LP |

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------society

S |

2.866088

2.946723

0.97

0.332

-2.950549

8.682725

pages

LN | -4.143584

2.472981

-1.68

0.096

age

LA | -.4891446

.1040427

-4.70

0.000

-.694518

-.2837712

citations LC | -.0161615

.064683

-0.25

0.803

-.1438415

.1115185

SLN | -.4852809

.4685923

-1.04

0.302

-1.410251

.4396893

SLC | -.1073762

.2245599

-0.48

0.633

-.5506426

.3358902

SLA |

.0218138

.3993713

0.05

0.957

-.7665187

.8101464

LN2 |

.3910415

.1870774

2.09

0.038

.0217631

.7603198

_cons |

17.69035

8.153315

2.17

0.031

1.596248

33.78446

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source |

SS

df

MS

-------------+-----------------------------Model | 56.7578429

5 11.3515686

Residual | 99.3105799

174 .570750459

-------------+-----------------------------Total | 156.068423

179 .871890631

Number of obs

F( 5,

174)

Prob > F

R-squared

Adj R-squared

Root MSE

=

=

=

=

=

=

180

19.89

0.0000

0.3637

0.3454

.75548

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------price

LP |

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------pages

LN | -3.750736

2.416129

-1.55

0.122

-8.51943

1.017957

age

LA | -.4836628

.0991712

-4.88

0.000

-.6793961

-.2879295

citations LC | -.0071069

.0617511

-0.12

0.909

-.1289846

.1147708

SLC | -.1690801

.0313662

-5.39

0.000

-.2309874

-.1071729

LN2 |

.3557514

.1820416

1.95

0.052

-.0035425

.7150454

_cons |

16.57367

7.994926

2.07

0.040

.7941495

32.35318

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variable |

VIF

1/VIF

-------------+---------------------LN2 |

423.92

0.002359

LN |

419.79

0.002382

LC |

2.11

0.474096

LA |

1.24

0.803837

SLC |

1.21

0.823833

-------------+---------------------Mean VIF |

169.65

10

11

Source |

SS

df

MS

-------------+-----------------------------Model | 139.755649

5 27.9511297

Residual |

86.234402

174 .495600012

-------------+-----------------------------Total | 225.990051

179 1.26251425

Number of obs

F( 5,

174)

Prob > F

R-squared

Adj R-squared

Root MSE

=

=

=

=

=

=

180

56.40

0.0000

0.6184

0.6074

.70399

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------subscriptions LY |

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------society

S | -.2190234

.2061648

-1.06

0.290

-.6259291

.1878823

price

LP | -.4394106

.0695569

-6.32

0.000

-.5766944

-.3021268

pages

LN |

.3482928

.1591566

2.19

0.030

.0341669

.6624188

age

LA |

.4272673

.0983372

4.34

0.000

.2331801

.6213546

citations

LC |

.4110117

.0571062

7.20

0.000

.2983018

.5237217

_cons |

1.209037

.8558679

1.41

0.160

-.4801824

2.898256

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. regress LY

S LP LN LA LC [weight=w]

(analytic weights assumed)

(sum of wgt is

3.1952e+03)

Source |

SS

df

MS

-------------+-----------------------------Model | 157.285638

5 31.4571277

Residual | 65.0093556

174 .373616986

-------------+-----------------------------Total | 222.294994

179 1.24187147

Number of obs

F( 5,

174)

Prob > F

R-squared

Adj R-squared

Root MSE

=

=

=

=

=

=

180

84.20

0.0000

0.7076

0.6992

.61124

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------subscriptions LY |

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

[95% Conf. Interval]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------society

S | -.1202159

.1696996

-0.71

0.480

-.4551505

.2147186

price

LP | -.4362878

.0587879

-7.42

0.000

-.552317

-.3202587

pages

LN |

.3057825

.1365795

2.24

0.026

.0362167

.5753484

age

LA |

.5066978

.095116

5.33

0.000

.3189682

.6944274

citations

LC |

.4090865

.0528861

7.74

0.000

.3047057

.5134673

_cons |

1.212265

.7035282

1.72

0.087

-.1762821

2.600813

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11

- An Optimised Method to Determine the Degree of Acetylation of Chitin and Chitosan by FTIR SpectroscopyUploaded byLe Thanh Long
- EXPLORING THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS ON BORO RICE YIELDS OF RAJSHAHI DISTRICT IN BANGLADESH.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- Pensri Et Al Biopsychosocial Factors and Perceived Disability in Saleswomen With Concurrent Low Back PainUploaded bybubbly_bea
- GInaFit Ensayo ModelosUploaded bySilvia Angelina Paredes Guanilo
- TPTM6495 S1 2012 - Practice Exam AnswersUploaded byLifeinsurancecorporation Ofindia
- 06 05 Adequacy of Regression ModelsUploaded byJohn Bofarull Guix
- Strain transfer functionUploaded byBeny Abdou
- examples_Econometrics.docxUploaded byHương Lê
- Coefficient of Determination and Interpretation of Determination CoefficientUploaded byJasdeep Singh Bains
- Barrons Data Analysis 1 (1)Uploaded by1012219
- Effect of the Learning Support and the Use of Project Management ToolsUploaded byAlexander Decker
- Regression Analysis and Model Building PPT @ BEC DOMSUploaded byBabasab Patil (Karrisatte)
- A Bid Mark-up Multi-Factor Evaluation Process Bidding Strategy in EgyptUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- NOTICE_HONS_ADM_2018_19_250918Uploaded byIrfan Sayeem Sultan
- 0321757416_Sullivan_Barrel_pp001-008.pdfUploaded byMirza
- 24Slides Template 2Uploaded byYusuf Ahmed
- The Macro of POUploaded byHoney Irmawati Hamzah
- Instrumentation Science & Technology 38 (6) (2010) 436-447Uploaded byKostas Kolovos
- predicting maximal grip strength using hand circumference.pdfUploaded byGreis Rguez
- Stats lab 2Uploaded bylantea1
- Regression analysisUploaded byChetan B Arkasali
- Centeno,Alexander 11148691 Econmet Final PaperUploaded byAlex Centeno
- FUNDAMENTALS OF WORK STUDY AND ERGONOMICSUploaded byAnkush Sharma
- multilinear regressionUploaded bytemkimleang
- AssignmentUploaded byDrHassan Ahmed Shaikh
- Multiple Regression AnalysisUploaded byhayati5823
- On the Relationship Between Perceived Service Quality, ServiUploaded byAndi Indahwaty Sidin
- Correlation CoefficientUploaded bykriss Wong
- theconfidenceintervalmini-projectUploaded byapi-358685851
- StatisticsUploaded byAndrew Reeves

- Stata RUploaded bymissinu
- Exam ECON301B 2002 CommentedUploaded bymissinu
- AnkiUploaded bymissinu
- MulticollinearityUploaded bymissinu
- Lecture 1 - Overview of Supervised LearningUploaded bymissinu
- Midterm Microeconomics 1 2012-13Uploaded bymissinu
- Economic Accounts 2005 FinalUploaded bymissinu
- Economic Accounts 2005 FinalUploaded bymissinu
- Exit Questionnaire 2005 FinalUploaded bymissinu
- Lecture 4 - Basis Expansion and RegularizationUploaded bymissinu
- Exam4135 2004 SolutionsUploaded bymissinu
- Balabolka SampleUploaded bymissinu
- Lecture 2 - Some Course AdminUploaded bymissinu
- Bai Giang Toan C2 (2009)Uploaded bymissinu
- Lecture 3 - Linear Methods for ClassificationUploaded bymissinu
- Cuc BVTVUploaded bymissinu
- Bai Tap Giai Tich 2 Chuong 2Uploaded bymissinu
- Giao Trinh VBA_GXDUploaded byYumi Ling
- Tom Tat Cong Thuc XSTKUploaded byTuấn Lê
- Thuchanh CH 141030Uploaded bymissinu
- Bai Giang Toan Kinh Te Quang 2012 1171Uploaded bynicksforums
- Regulations Livestock in VN SummaryUploaded bymissinu
- Manure Estimates.pdfUploaded bymissinu
- 3-Vu Trong Khai - Tich Tu Ruong DatUploaded byematn
- Introduction to Microeconomic Theory and GE Theory (2015)Uploaded bymissinu
- GRE VocabularyUploaded byKoksiong Poon
- Giai Tich 2 2014 Chuong 5Uploaded bymissinu
- Visual BasicUploaded byxuananh
- Vocabulary IELTS Speaking Theo TopicUploaded byBBBBBBB

- Contrast Sensitivity Measures by Two Diferent TestUploaded byCEB
- StatsUploaded byqwerhqeor
- Attribute and Variable Sampling Plan DesignUploaded bykhalid
- altman pd modelUploaded byapi-223061586
- tmp9870.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- Consumer satisfaction towards direct Benefit Transfer of LPG (DBTL) scheme with Reference to Avadi, ChennaiUploaded byprojectseasy
- 8Uploaded byRaluca Muresan
- StuffUploaded byTrixieMagalong
- Cluster SamplingUploaded byken1919191
- Sol_HW7Uploaded byShweta Premanandan
- 10.1.1.462.5462Uploaded byWaqas Ayub
- Restricted_Testing_000.pdfUploaded byAnonymous yatFBhevv
- 2rvariables SlidesUploaded bybob
- Regression quizUploaded byejoneel
- UC Davis Statistics Lecture note 1Uploaded byJuneyoung Yang
- StatUploaded byjsarmientodc
- Hypothesis Tests in Bernoulli PopulationsUploaded byPedro Barbosa
- QMEX5Uploaded bygeorgecotton
- Lenth Method 1989Uploaded byJan Libbrecht
- a borrowed ppt on chi squareanalysisUploaded byray92100
- Introduction to Design of ExperimentsUploaded byanon_76013
- Atiase 1985Uploaded bysanamdad
- Logit-ologitUploaded byRoberto Cisneros Mendoza
- samlingUploaded byNipun Gupta
- RJournal_2011-2_Arnold+Emerson (1).pdfUploaded bytiik27
- Little Book R for Biomedical StatisticsUploaded byGiampaolo Orlandoni
- griskevisius replication poster 002Uploaded byapi-383582002
- research designUploaded byapi-339611548
- Model de regresie - teorie Orzan.pdfUploaded byElisa Barbu
- Fall 2006 - Midterm SolutionsUploaded byTony536