|
000
| 01888cam 2200325za 4500 |
|---|
| 001 | 9.823237 |
|---|
| 003 | CaOODSP |
|---|
| 005 | 20221107143845 |
|---|
| 007 | cr ||||||||||| |
|---|
| 008 | 160825s1996 onc #o f100 0 eng d |
|---|
| 040 | |aCaOODSP|beng |
|---|
| 043 | |an-cn--- |
|---|
| 086 | 1 |aCS91-0040/1996E-PDF |
|---|
| 100 | 1 |aVerma, Ravi B. P. |
|---|
| 245 | 10|aFertility projections |h[electronic resource] : |bPearson Type III curve vs 3-year average age-specific fertility rates / |cR.B.P. Verma and S. Loh. |
|---|
| 246 | 13|aProceedings of the Survey Methods Section. |
|---|
| 260 | |a[Ottawa : |bPopulation Projections Section, Demography Division, Statistics Canada,] |c1996. |
|---|
| 300 | |a[5] p. |
|---|
| 500 | |aCopy of an article from Proceedings of the Survey Methods Division, 1996. |
|---|
| 500 | |aIncludes abstract in French. |
|---|
| 500 | |aDigitized edition from print [produced by Statistics Canada]. |
|---|
| 504 | |aIncludes bibliographic references. |
|---|
| 520 | 3 |a"The purpose of this paper is to compare the Pearson Type III curve method with the constant age-specific fertility rate method for fertility projection. The projected number of births derived by the two methods are compared at the provincial level for the years 1993 to 2001. An analysis of the results shows that the differences in the projected numbers of births generated by these methods are not large. However, the Pearson Type III Curve is a more analytically powerful method than the constant age-specific fertility rate method for projecting births." -- Abstract, p. 191. |
|---|
| 692 | 07|2gccst|aFertility |
|---|
| 692 | 07|2gccst|aForecasting |
|---|
| 692 | 07|2gccst|aStatistical analysis |
|---|
| 700 | 1 |aLoh, Shirley Siu Ying,|d1958- |
|---|
| 710 | 1 |aCanada.|bStatistics Canada.|bPopulation Projections Section. |
|---|
| 856 | 40|qPDF|s108 KB|uhttps://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/statcan/CS91-0040-1996-eng.pdf |
|---|