000 02092nam  2200289za 4500
0019.840817
003CaOODSP
00520221107151933
007cr |||||||||||
008170801s2008    onc    |o    f|0| 0 eng d
040 |aCaOODSP|beng
043 |an-cn---
0861 |aCS11-617/2008-1E-PDF
24500|aShould sub-annual surveys be benchmarked to their annual counterparts? |h[electronic resource] : |bA case study of manufacturing surveys / |cby Wesley Yung ... [et al.].
260 |a[Ottawa] : |bStatistics Canada, |c2008.
300 |a18 p.
4901 |aWorking paper ; |v2008-1
500 |aDigitized edition from print [produced by Statistics Canada].
500 |a"BSMD 2008-001E."
504 |aIncludes bibliographic references.
5203 |a"For many years, the results of the Monthly Survey of Manufacturing (MSM) and the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) have been reconciled and then made equivalent through an annual benchmarking process. Amongst other things, the MSM used the benchmarking exercise to account for the contribution of the take-none portion of the sampling frame. After the 2004 benchmarking exercise produced some significant changes to the MSM annual growth rates, there were some questions as to whether it was still appropriate to force the results of the two surveys together. In reaction to these questions, a working group was created to answer the question 'Taking into account the many differences between the two surveys and the needs of the data users, should the MSM continue to be berichmarked to the ASM?' This working paper presents the results of the analyses done by the working group and recommendations for the MSM and the ASM"--Abstract.
69207|2gccst|aStatistical analysis
69207|2gccst|aMethodology
7001 |aYung, Wesley Thomas.
7101 |aCanada. |bStatistics Canada. |bMethodology Branch.
830#0|aWorking paper (Statistics Canada. Methodology Branch)|v2008-1|w(CaOODSP)9.834763
85640|qPDF|s2.35 MB|uhttps://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/statcan/11-613/CS11-617-2008-1-eng.pdf