
Abstract An examination is made of the effectiveness of the Chandrasekar-Deming technique for estimating the number of vital events using both the registration (continuous recording) of events and a periodic retrospective survey. It is shown that, under a general model for response errors, the technique may produce estimates that are considerably biased downwards. A comparison is made with a number of other estimators. The possibility of improving results through double sampling is explored.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
