Suchergebnisse

This paper concerns a class of model selection criteria based on cross‐validation techniques and estimative predictive densities. Both the simple or leave‐one‐out and the multifold or leave‐m‐out cross‐validation procedures are considered. These cross‐validation criteria define suitable estimators for the expected Kullback–Liebler risk, which measures the expected discrepancy between the fitted candidate model and the true one. In particular, we shall investigate the potential bias of these estimators, under alternative asymptotic regimes for m. The results are obtained within the general context of independent, but not necessarily identically distributed, observations and by assuming that the candidate model may not contain the true distribution. An application to the class of normal regression models is also presented, and simulation results are obtained in order to gain some further understanding on the behavior of the estimators.

The descendants of the First Peoples of the Americas (labeled "American Indians and Alaska Natives" in the federal definition) are a particularly challenging group to count in censuses. In this article, I describe some enumeration issues and then outline what we have learned about American Indians and Alaska Natives from efforts that rely on individuals' answers to census questions on race, ancestry, ethnicity, and tribe. Those who do not report a tribe and those who change their race response from one census to another complicate these efforts. Tribal self-enumeration and indigenous data sovereignty may improve data about some portions of the population. Census and survey enumeration efforts should continue to separate the concepts of race, ancestry, and tribe lest the various subpopulations become indistinguishable in the data, making the data much less useful and possibly misleading.

Objectives.About 11 percent of American Indians did not report their tribal affiliation on the 1990 U.S. Census form. I use several theoretical perspectives as tools to explore the reasons behind this surprising omission.Method.Logistic regression analysis is the method employed.Results.American Indians living with someone who speaks an American Indian language are very likely to report a tribal affiliation, as are those living in "Indian states" (states with historically high numbers of American Indians). Those who are least likely to report a tribal affiliation are Hispanic women with low education who report no American Indian ancestry, do not live with other American Indians, and live in a metropolitan area of a "non‐Indian state."Conclusions.Lack of knowledge of family history appears to be one of the primary causes of tribal nonresponse. Salience of tribal identity also affects responses.

Objectives. About 11% of American Indians did not report their tribal affiliation on the 1990 US Census form. I use several theoretical perspectives as tools to explore the reasons behind this surprising omission. Method. Logistic regression analysis is the method employed. Results. American Indians living with someone who speaks an American Indian language are very likely to report a tribal affiliation, as are those living in "Indian states" (states with historically high numbers of American Indians). Those who are least likely to report a tribal affiliation are Hispanic women with low education who report no American Indian ancestry, do not live with other American Indians, & live in a metropolitan area of a "non-Indian state." Conclusions. Lack of knowledge of family history appears to be one of the primary causes of tribal nonresponse. Salience of tribal identity also affects responses. 2 Tables, 24 References. Adapted from the source document.

Socially constructed race groups have boundaries that define their membership. I study temporal trends and group-specific patterns in race and ancestry responses provided for children of interracial marriages. Common responses indicate contemporary definitions of race groups (and perhaps emerging groups); uncommon responses reveal socially defined limits of race group membership. I leverage dense, nonpublic, Census Bureau data from 1960 to 2010 to do this and include a more diverse set of families, a longer time span, and more accurate estimates than prior research. I find that the location of race group boundaries varies over time and across 11 distinct family types. Since mixed-heritage responses became possible in 1980, they have been common in most groups. Part Asians have almost always been reported as multiracial or mixed ancestry. A number of (non-Asian) mixed-heritage children are described as monoracial on the census form, particularly children with American Indian heritage. Over time, part whites are decreasingly reported as monoracially white (white race with no nonwhite ancestry). Black heritage is reported for part blacks, but monoracial black responses became nonmodal by 1980. Part Pacific Islanders show similarities to part Asians and part American Indians. Given the predominance of multiracial and mixed-ancestry Asian responses since 1980, Asian multiracial may be an emerging socially recognized race category. Black multiracial shows a similar pattern. Monoracial responses (especially common among white–American Indians and black–American Indians) create important but hard-to-measure complexity in groups' compositions.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Dedication -- Copyright -- Contents -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgments -- 1 Introduction -- Governmental Structure in a Changing Nation -- Adapting the Tools to Govern -- American Foreign Policy After Chadha -- 2 Making American Foreign Policy: The Struggle for Influence -- The Foreign Policy of a Superpower: The U.S. After WWII -- The Reassertive Congress -- The Role of the Courts -- American Foreign Policy Without the Legislative Veto -- 3 The Fall of the Legislative Veto: I.N.S. v. Chadha -- Forms and Functions of the Legislative Veto -- Policy Influence -- Arguments for and Against the Legislative Veto -- The Chadha Decision -- Alternatives to the Legislative Veto -- 4 The Irony of Reform: A Theoretical Framework -- When Congress Gets Involved -- Whither Conflict? Foreign Policy Issue Types and the Potential for Conflict -- Conflict and Consensus in American Foreign Policy -- 5 From Codetermination to Conflict: Arms Sales to the Middle East -- Determining the Potential for Conflict -- Arms Sales to the Arabs and U.S. Policy in the Middle East -- From Cooperation to Conflict: The Irony of Reform -- 6 Comity or Latent Conflict? Most Favored Nation Trade Status -- Fonnulating Most Favored Nation Trade Policy -- Determining the Potential for Conflict -- Most Favored Nation Trade Status and U.S. Foreign Policy -- China and the Soviet Union -- MFN Policy: The Politics and Structure of Interbranch Relations -- 7 Congressional Involvement When It Doesn't Play in Peoria: Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy -- Detennining the Potential for Conflict -- Nonproliferation Policy and Executive-Legislative Relations -- Nonproliferation Policy and the Impact of Chadha -- 8 Crisis Policy, the Executive Domain: The War Powers Resolution -- Determining the Potential for Conflict -- Provisions of the War Powers Resolution.