The questions of fit in the gregor mendel controversy

Ever since R. A. Fisher published his 1936 article , "Has Mendel's Work Been Rediscovered?", historians of both biclogy and statistics have been fascinated by the surprisingly high conformity between Gregor (Johann) Mendel's observed and expected ratios in his famous experiments with peas. Fisher's calculatftl x² statistic of the experiments, taken as a whole, suggested that results on a par or better than those Mendel reported coultl only be expected to occur about three times in every 100,000 attempts. The ensuing controversy as to whether or not the good Father "sophisticated" his data has continued to this very day. In recent years the controversy has focused upon the more technical question of what underlying genetic arrangement Mendel actually studied.

The statistical issues of the controversy are exam:.led in am historical and comparative perspective. The changes the controversy has gone through are evaluated, and the nature of its current, more biological, status is briefly discussed.     

Agricultural Journalists' Assessments of Print Coverage of Agricultural News1

Abstract Critics of agricultural news claim farm media and mass media coverage of agriculture is systematically distorted, a condition that could seriously affect the agricultural information system. A national survey used agricultural journalists as expert judges to assess how well three types of print journalists cover agricultural news. Their assessments indicated that mass media reporters who do not regularly cover agricultural news tend to write agriculture stories that are superficial and stereotyped but not biased toward agricultural interests. Farm magazine writers' stories are not superficial or stereotyped, but writers are uncritical of agriculture, biased toward agroindustry, and overlook important social and environmental issues. Newspaper farm beat reporters are closer to farm magazine writers in not trivializing agriculture and closer to general newspaper reporters in avoiding close ties with industry. Both farmers and public thus receive biased and fragmented reporting that may polarize their views on current agricultural issues. Even if reporters are aware of critical shortcomings in their coverage, improvement may require reduction in structural constraints on story choice.     

Strategy-proofness of social welfare functions: The use of the Kemeny distance between preference orderings

The Kemeny distance for preference orderings is used to determine individual rankings of social preferences. Based on this distance function, the strategy-proofness of social welfare functions is examined. Our main result is an impossibility theorem stating that no social welfare function can be strategy-proof, if some additional properties are required.The work on this paper initiated while Walter Bossert was a visitor at the CentER for Economic Research at Tilburg University. The hospitality and the support of CentER and its members are gratefully acknowledged. Ton Storcken's research was supported by a grant from the Cooperation Centre Tilburg and Eindhoven University. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 1991 Canadian Economic Theory Meeting in Toronto. We thank the participants and especially Ingrid Peters-Fransen for comments. Substantial improvements are due to the suggestions of Bernard Monjardet and two referees.     

The impact of unionization on the entry of firms: Evidence from U.S. industries

Traditional models of entry-deterrence typically emphasize sunk costs or predatory pricing, but unionization might also discourage potential entrants. This paper explores this possibility through an empirical model of entry that includes unionization as an explanatory variable. We find that unionization has a statistically significant entry-deterring effect.     

What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action

Conclusion This article argues that the problem of uncertainty represents the central limitation of efficiency-based approaches to the explanation and prediction of economic outcomes. The problem of uncertainty reintroduces the Hobbesian problem of order into economics and makes it possible to connect questions of economic decision-making with social theory. The emphasis lies not, as in the behavioral theories of the Carnegie School, in the influence of uncertainty on the actual decision process, but in those social devices that actors rely on in decision-making, i.e., that structure the situation for the agents. If agents cannot anticipate the benefits of an investment, optimizing decisions become impossible, and the question opens up how intentionally rational actors reach decisions under this condition of uncertainty. This provides a systematic starting point for economic sociology. Studies in economic sociology that argue from different theoretical perspectives point to the significance of uncertainty and goal ambiguity. This contribution reflects theoretically why economic sociology can develop a promising approach by building upon these insights. It becomes understandable why culture, power, institutions, social structures, and cognitive processes are important in modern market economies. But it should be equally emphasized that the maximizing paradigm in economics will not be dethroned without a causal theory of the relationship of intentional rationality and social rigidities.     

Confidence to be given findings derived from fixed-period definitions of migration

Some of the errors in measurement of migration and its determinants that occur with the use of fixed-period data are identified. Consideration of this issue yields a typology of studies based on the nature of the determinants related to migration. Sources of distortion are numerated. The logical severity of each distortion is detailed. Use of the typology permits an appraisal of the potential confidence to be given to the validity of findings associated with classes of migration research which use fixed-period data. A test case is examined to illustrate the usefulness of the typology.This research was supported in part by the NSF Grant No. SOC76-81767, for the study, "A Test of Competing Explanations for Migration Differentials." Funds for computer time and technical assistance were also provided by the Department of Sociology, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.     

Model Selection and Estimation with Quantal‐Response Data in Benchmark Risk Assessment

This article describes several approaches for estimating the benchmark dose (BMD) in a risk assessment study with quantal dose‐response data and when there are competing model classes for the dose‐response function. Strategies involving a two‐step approach, a model‐averaging approach, a focused‐inference approach, and a nonparametric approach based on a PAVA‐based estimator of the dose‐response function are described and compared. Attention is raised to the perils involved in data “double‐dipping” and the need to adjust for the model‐selection stage in the estimation procedure. Simulation results are presented comparing the performance of five model selectors and eight BMD estimators. An illustration using a real quantal‐response data set from a carcinogenecity study is provided.