similar to: issue plotting TukeyHSD

Hello, I have tried reading the documentation and googling for the answer but reviewing the online matches I end up more confused than before. My problem is apparently simple. I fit a glm model (2^k experiment), and then I would like to predict the response variable (Throughput) for unseen factor levels. When I try to predict I get the following error: > throughput.pred <-

Hello, I have one replication (r=1 of the 2^k*r) of a 2^k experimental design in the context of performance analysis i.e. my response variables are Throughput and Response Time. I use the "aov" function and the results look ok: > str(throughput) 'data.frame': 286 obs. of 7 variables: $ Time : int 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... $ Throughput : int 42 44 33 41

Hello, I currently get anova results out of the aov function (see below) I use the model.tables and I believe it gives me back the model parameters of the fit (betas), however I don't see the intercept (beta_0) and don't understand what the "rep" output means and there is no description in the documentation. Another question: is there a function that outputs the results in a

Hello, I currently run aov in the following way: > throughput.aov <- aov(log(Throughput)~No_databases+Partitioning+No_middlewares+Queue_size,data=throughput) > summary(throughput.aov) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) No_databases 1 184.68 184.675 136.6945 < 2.2e-16 *** Partitioning 1 70.16 70.161 51.9321 2.516e-12 *** No_middlewares 2 44.22

From: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen at vmware.com> The current maximum size of a queue in a queue pair is 128 MB. If we increase that in the future, the queue pair allocation routines may run into overflow issues. This change adds additional checks to guard against this. Acked-by: Andy King <acking at vmware.com> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> Signed-off-by:

From: Jorgen Hansen <jhansen at vmware.com> The current maximum size of a queue in a queue pair is 128 MB. If we increase that in the future, the queue pair allocation routines may run into overflow issues. This change adds additional checks to guard against this. Acked-by: Andy King <acking at vmware.com> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> Signed-off-by:

Hello R People: Here's the Saturday night goofy question. I would like to see the code for TukeyHSD function and I tried the following: > getAnywhere("TukeyHSD") A single object matching ?TukeyHSD? was found It was found in the following places package:stats namespace:stats with value function (x, which, ordered = FALSE, conf.level = 0.95, ...)

I can prove I've done this before, but I recently installed Rexcel (and it was easiest to reinstall R and some other bits to make it work) and now its no longer working. Before I would do an ANOVA and a tukey post-hoc like this: >data1.aov=aov(result~factor1*factor2, data=data1) then... >TukeyHSD(summary(data1.aov)) and it would give me a nice tukey table of all the pairwise

I would like to do a one way anova and then a tukeyHSD. I have three vectors A,B and C. In a previous help message, I was told to do the following for the anova: y = c(A,B,C) group = factor(rep(a:3,c(7,9,13))) #provided there a 7 elements in A,9 in B and 13 in C and then anova(lm(y~group)) Looking at the tukeyHSD method it looks like it wants the aov method which I don't understand.

pairwise.t.test is returning NAs when one of the samples only has one entry, while TukeyHSD returns results (maybe not trustworthy or believable, but results). I stumbled on this because I did not realize one of my samples only had one entry while most of the others had several hundred, so I realize this is not a desirable situation. I'm really just curious about the difference between how

Hello everyone, So I ran an anova with aov and then I want to run post-hoc comparisons but keep receiving this message : > no applicable method for "TukeyHSD" Here is my code: > d<-read.table("d.txt") > d > Obs subj Hand Gaze RT > 1 1 s1 1 1 401.4 > 2 2 s2 1 1 363.3...... > summary(ano <-

I have a question about TukeyHSD and the glht function because I'm getting different answers when a covariate is included in model for ANCOVA.? I'm using the cabbages dataset in the 'MASS' package for repeatability.? If I include HeadWt as a covariate, then I get different answers when performing multiple comparisons using TukeyHSD and the glht function. The difference appears

Dear R community, I'm trying to understand this behavior of TukeyHSD. My goal is to obtain defensible, labelled multiple comparisons of an interaction term. Firstly, if I plot the TukeyHSD from the model that calculates its own interactions, then the y-axis labels appear to be reflected on their median when compared to the text output of the TukeyHSD statement. The labels are integers.

I've tried to run a Tukey post-hoc but keep getting this weird error, whether the aov was significant or not. treat_code is a dummy variable, but that shouldn't matter. Any suggestions? Thanks Amy > summary(aov(EtoH~treat_code, mydata)) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) treat_code 1 16.44 16.44 11.027 0.001014 ** Residuals 287 427.91 1.49 --- Signif.

Hello, When plotting the results of a TukeyHSD multiple comparisons procedure with an ANOVA (lm) object, an extra line appears in the confidence intervals that contain 0. For example (this is straight from the TukeyHSD helpfile): > summary(fm1 <- aov(breaks ~ wool + tension, data = warpbreaks)) > TukeyHSD(fm1, "tension", ordered = TRUE) > plot(TukeyHSD(fm1,

Why do I see this error? > library(stats) > require(stats) [1] TRUE > > tHSD <- TukeyHSD(aov) Error in TukeyHSD(aov) : no applicable method for "TukeyHSD" In case it helps: > aov Call: aov(formula = roi ~ (Cue * Hemisphere) + Error(Subject/(Cue * Hemisphere)), data = roiDataframe) Grand Mean: 8.195069 Stratum 1: Subject Terms: Residuals Sum

Attached follows a patch to a minor change in the plot method of the TukeyHSD class (package stats). Basically it defines main= and xlab= as formal arguments of the plot function, with reasonable default values, passing them to title(), instead of using hard-coded only values for main= and xlab=. This way it's possible to change the title and xlab of the plots created using plot.TukeyHSD().

Hello, I am trying to determine the most appropriate way to run post-hoc comparisons on my lme model. I had originally planned to use Tukey HSD method as I am interested in all possible comparisons between my treatment levels. TukeyHSD, however, does not work with lme. The only other code that I was able to find, and which also seems to be widely used, is glht specified with Tukey:

Hi all, I search the archive for finding a simple solution for using TukeyHSD with a multistratum aov result (a repeated emasure anova). The Question have been asked but I've found no clear answer. res<-aov(y~Fa*Fb+Error(Subject/(Fa*Fb)) ) I think that the problem is that res is an aovlist object instead of the "aov" object required by TukeyHSD. Is there an easy solution to

Howdo folks, So I have my data (attached). There are two columns I'm interested in; "algname" and "dur". I'd like to know how dur changes with algname. algname is nominal and there are 7 possibilities. There are two more nominal independents, "task" and "id", so my model is: dur ~ algname+task+id From the research I've done, a TukeyHSD