1997
DOI: 10.1006/jasc.1996.0106
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing Departures from Log-Normality in the Rank-Size Rule

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Larger scale economic and demographic processes are invoked to understand city size distributions on the level of nations or "city systems," often studied with rank-size analyses (Berry 1964). This approach has seen numerous archaeological applications, and archaeologists have contributed methodological refinements (e.g., Drennan and Peterson 2004;Savage 1997).…”
Section: City Size Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Larger scale economic and demographic processes are invoked to understand city size distributions on the level of nations or "city systems," often studied with rank-size analyses (Berry 1964). This approach has seen numerous archaeological applications, and archaeologists have contributed methodological refinements (e.g., Drennan and Peterson 2004;Savage 1997).…”
Section: City Size Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). Several variations on this theme created by combining these departures from log-normal in different ways have also been identified e.g., [21]. The generality of the assumptions underlying the log-normal expectation has been questioned in contemporary studies, and seems even more suspect for the range of societies whose settlement distributions have been studied in this way archaeologically [11 (p. 148), 19 (pp.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…5 are values calculated for the A coefficient defined by Drennan and Peterson (2004) to quantify the deviation of rank-size distributions from Zipf's rule. This metric is one of several that have been proposed (Johnson 1980, Savage 1997, Griffin and Stanish 2007. The A coefficient was chosen for use here because of its intuitive correspondence to the difference in area enclosed by a rank-size plot above the Zipf line and the area below it.…”
Section: Illustrated Inmentioning
confidence: 99%