1968
DOI: 10.2307/2987164
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Choice of Strategy in the Analysis of Complex Data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1971
1971
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, although a number of attempts have been made to evaluate the relative performance of methods at various points over the past 25 years (e.g. Williams & Lance 1968;Gauch & Whittaker 1972b;Dale 1975;Austin 1976;Fasham 1977;Goodall 1978;Whittaker & Gauch 1978;Brown et al 1984;Minchin 1987a), a clear and consistent consensus over which method or methods should be recommended for general use has never emerged. Rather, as each technique or group of techniques has evolved, it has usually been assumed to represent the best available.…”
Section: The Range Of Choice Of Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, although a number of attempts have been made to evaluate the relative performance of methods at various points over the past 25 years (e.g. Williams & Lance 1968;Gauch & Whittaker 1972b;Dale 1975;Austin 1976;Fasham 1977;Goodall 1978;Whittaker & Gauch 1978;Brown et al 1984;Minchin 1987a), a clear and consistent consensus over which method or methods should be recommended for general use has never emerged. Rather, as each technique or group of techniques has evolved, it has usually been assumed to represent the best available.…”
Section: The Range Of Choice Of Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The predictive attribute analysis of Macnaughton-Smith (Williams and Lance, 1968) failed to show high-order interactions that were helpful in predicting neurosis. Application of the programme MULTIST (Lance and Williams, 1967) to 72 qualitative attributes, 11 numerical attributes, and 9 multi-state attributes revealed no high-level discontinuity and suggested that the system had little structure.…”
Section: Impairmentmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Methods and purposes 1. Canopy trees -coenocline ISA (Hill et al, 1975); CANMAR Where shown in Tables and Figures Table 2 Results from 2 and 3 by GOWER followed by CANONGO (Williams & Lance, 1968;Williams, 1976) and principal coordinate analysis (PCA; Gower, 1967;Gittins, 2012) followed by GOWECOR (first 20 Spearman correlations).…”
Section: Stages Of Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%