You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, joined spatial aggregate results are redacted using a count of the total number of subscribers in each region.
When aggregating a categorical metric (handset is the only one exposed at the moment, I think) using the 'distr' method, one row per category is returned for each location, giving the proportion of subscribers in each category. If the number of subscribers in region A who fall into category 3 is fewer than 15, results for region A should be redacted to preserve privacy. However, in the current implementation, region A results will only be redacted if the total number of subscribers in region A (across all categories) is fewer than 15.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In light of #4677, I'd be inclined to drop the 'distr' method from JoinedSpatialAggregate altogether (or at least un-expose it) - 'distr' has to be handled completely differently to the other methods, and accepts a different set of metrics (which complicates the parameter validation), and the same result could be achieved by dividing the results of a LabelledSpatialAggregate by the results of an un-labelled SpatialAggregate.
Currently, joined spatial aggregate results are redacted using a count of the total number of subscribers in each region.
When aggregating a categorical metric (
handset
is the only one exposed at the moment, I think) using the 'distr' method, one row per category is returned for each location, giving the proportion of subscribers in each category. If the number of subscribers in region A who fall into category 3 is fewer than 15, results for region A should be redacted to preserve privacy. However, in the current implementation, region A results will only be redacted if the total number of subscribers in region A (across all categories) is fewer than 15.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: