This note is a rejoinder to Baten, Benati, and Ferber. We reiterate that, on close inspection, nineteenth-century Italian census data contain a number of anomalies that sit uncomfortably with a straightforward age-heaping-as-numeracy interpretation. In particular, we respond to Baten, Benati, and Ferber on the technical matters they have raised; then we show that our findings are robust to such criticism. Finally, we conclude with some general reflections on age heaping as a numeracy indicator.
Age heaping and its discontents: A response to Baten, Benati, and Ferber
A'Hearn B.;Delfino A.;Nuvolari A.
2022-01-01
Abstract
This note is a rejoinder to Baten, Benati, and Ferber. We reiterate that, on close inspection, nineteenth-century Italian census data contain a number of anomalies that sit uncomfortably with a straightforward age-heaping-as-numeracy interpretation. In particular, we respond to Baten, Benati, and Ferber on the technical matters they have raised; then we show that our findings are robust to such criticism. Finally, we conclude with some general reflections on age heaping as a numeracy indicator.File in questo prodotto:
File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
age_heapingEHR_response.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Documento in Post-print/Accepted manuscript
Licenza:
Creative commons (selezionare)
Dimensione
240.3 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
240.3 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.