Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 440

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

2. A Methodological Comparison of Age-Period-Cohort Models: The Intrinsic Estimator and Conventional Generalized Linear Models

Yang, Yang, Fu, Wenjiang J., Land, Kenneth C.·2004·Sociological Methodology

Abstract

Age-period-cohort (APC) accounting models have long been objects of attention in statistical studies of human populations. It is well known that the identification problem created by the linear dependency of age, period, and cohort (Period = Age + Cohort or P = A + C) presents a major methodological challenge to APC analysis, a problem that has been widely addressed in demography, epidemiology, and statistics. This paper compares parameter estimates and model fit statistics produced by two solutions to the identification problem in age-period-cohort models—namely, the conventional demographic approach of constrained generalized linear models (Fienberg and Mason 1978, 1985; Mason and Smith 1985) and the intrinsic estimator method recently developed by Fu (2000; Knight and Fu 2000; Fu, Hall, and Rohan 2004). We report empirical analyses of applications of these two methods to population data on U.S. female mortality rates. Comparisons of parameter estimates suggest that both constrained generalized linear models and the intrinsic estimator method can yield similar estimates of age, period, and cohort effects, but estimates obtained by the intrinsic estimator are more direct and do not require prior information to select appropriate model identifying constraints. We also describe three statistical properties of the estimators: (1) finite-time-period bias, (2) relative statistical efficiency, and (3) consistency as the number of periods of observed data increases. These empirical analyses and theoretical results suggest that the intrinsic estimator may well provide a useful alternative to conventional methods for the APC analysis of demographic rates.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00148.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 440

Metadata

Authors
Yang, Y., Fu, W. J., & Land, K. C.
Venue
Sociological Methodology
Published
2004-12
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
75-110
ISSN
  • 0081-1750 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9531
OpenAlex
W2056102908
Cited by
440
References
37
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 2. A Methodological Comparison of Age-Period-Cohort Models: The Intrinsic Estimator and Conventional Generalized Linear Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00148.x
The paper
Yang, Y., Fu, W. J., & Land, K. C. (2004). 2. A Methodological Comparison of Age-Period-Cohort Models: The Intrinsic Estimator and Conventional Generalized Linear Models. Sociological Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00148.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.