CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Nearest-Neighbor Statistic: Archaeological Application and New Developments

Pinder, David, Shimada, Izumi, Gregory, David·1979·American Antiquity
DOI 10.2307/279543
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Human behavior has spatial corollaries of great importance to both geographers and archaeologists. Some of these corollaries can be expressed as point maps, and to describe them objectively it has become common-place to employ the nearest-neighbor analysis technique devised by ecologists. But recently it has been shown that "underestimation" is an inherent flaw of the technique. Initially, therefore, the attention of this paper focuses on elimination of this problem by modifying the traditional formulae. With the flaw corrected, the issues surrounding interpretation of the nearest-neighbor statistic are discussed, and a review is made of the special difficulties of applying the technique to archaeological data.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/279543

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • El análisis de vecino más cercano calcula el promedio de las distancias entre un asentamiento y su vecino más próximo, por lo que no permite caracterizar la relación de este asentamiento con otros vecinos.

    “Como se mencionó, este análisis calcula el promedio de las distancias entre un asentamiento y su vecino más próximo, por lo que no permite caracterizar la relación de este asentamiento con otros vecinos (Pinder, Shimada y Gregory 1979).”

    From El patrón de poblamiento prehispánico en el altiplano cundiboyacense y sus consecuencias en la constitución de la sociedad colonial (2023) · cites this paper as Pinder, Shimada y Gregory 1979

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Pinder, 1978a, The elimination of underestimation in nearest-neighbor analysis., University of Southampton, Department of Geography, Discussion Paper No. 1
  2. Stickel, 1968, Status differentiation at the Rincon site., In University of California Archaeological Survey, Annual Report, 1968, 209
  3. Vincent, 1976, The general case: how not to measure spatial point patterns., Area, 8, 161
  4. 10.1111/j.1467-9663.1973.tb00077.x · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1967.tb01352.x · DOI
  6. Graybill, 1976, New analytical strategies for spatial analysis., Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, St. Louis
  7. Haworth, 1976, Maximizing the nearest-neighbor statistic., Area, 8, 299
  8. Earle, 1976, In The early Mesoamericanvillage,, 196
  9. Dean, 1969, Chronological analysis of Tsegi phase sites in northeastern Arizona., Papers of the Laboratory of Treering Research, No. 3
  10. Pinder, 1971, Southampton Research Series in Geography, No. 6.
  11. 10.2307/1931034 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1960.tb00332.x · DOI
  13. 10.2307/278666 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1963.tb00463.x · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1467-9663.1973.tb00100.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Plog, 1974, In Frontiers of anthropology,, 68
  17. Pinder, 1978b, Correcting underestimation in nearest-neighbor analysis., Area, in Press
  18. 10.2307/2257260 · DOI
  19. 10.2307/279591 · DOI
  20. Pinder, 1972, The principles, practice and pitfalls of nearest-neighbor analysis., Geography, 57, 277
  21. 10.1126/science.123.3192.373 · DOI
  22. 10.2307/278019 · DOI
  23. Pinder, 1975, A modification of nearest-neighbor analysis for use in linear situations., Geography, 60, 16
  24. 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1960.tb00352.x · DOI
  25. 10.2307/279216 · DOI
  26. Ebdon, 1976, On the underestimation inherent in the commonly used formulae., Area, 8, 165
  27. 10.1080/01944365608979229 · DOI
  28. 10.1080/00438243.1969.9979497 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1968.00376.x · DOI
  30. 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1964.tb00497.x · DOI
  31. Hodder, 1972, In Models in archaeology,, 887
  32. 10.2307/2799028 · DOI
  33. 10.2307/490674 · DOI
  34. 10.2307/1933511 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pinder, D., Shimada, I., & Gregory, D.
Venue
American Antiquity
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1979-07
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
430-445
ISSN
  • 0002-7316
  • 2325-5064
DOI
10.2307/279543
Cited by
34
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 13718 d)

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