Talk:Proxy (statistics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Stub	rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the importance scale

[edit] Typo or example of singular usage?

The line as a prox for gender seems to be a typo but I am not familiar with the term so I don't know. Perhaps someone can verify whether or not the word should read as prox rather than proxy. BigNate37_T·C 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You were right BigNate, it was a typo. There is no "prox" in statistics.

[edit] A better example?

What was the person who wrote the "sex as a proxy for gender" phrase thinking? This makes very little sense, statistical or otherwise.

[edit] Proxy (climate) and Proxy (statistics)

Barring any objections I'll move the example from proxy {climate) here and set a redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. They are different enough to not merit merging. And there are plenty of other climate proxies that ought to be added William M. Connolley 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where they differ. Proxies are observable independent variables that are used as stand-ins for unobservable causal variables under the assumption that causal variable and proxy are highly correlated, and both articles state exactly that. We could start articles on proxy (political economy) and proxy (biology) offering field-specific examples, but the would simply be confusing and counterproductive. The concept of a proxy is the same in empirical research, no matter the field. ~ trialsanderrors 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"different" was the wrong word. Its well enough used in climate to need its own article. There is far more that ought to be added - tree rings; coral; etc. If there are useful proxies in bio, then yes they probably do want their own articles William M. Connolley 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WMC, the climate proxies are significant and notable enough for the independant article. If other fields use proxies in a sufficiently notable manner then they too, should have independant articles. Therefore - no merge. Vsmith 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced, but I'm not particularly inclined to argue about it. I've removed the merge headers. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)