search for: 0.0648

Greetings, I am having a problem with DescTools::Quantile (a function computing quantiles from weighted samples): # these sum to one probWeights = c( 0.0043, 0.0062, 0.0087, 0.0119, 0.0157, 0.0204, 0.0257, 0.0315, 0.0378, 0.0441, 0.0501, 0.0556, 0.06, 0.0632, 0.0648, 0.0648, 0.0632, 0.06, 0.0556, 0.0501, 0.0441, 0.0378, 0.0315, 0.0257, 0.0204, 0.0157, 0.0119, 0.0087,

Thanks. In this case below, what is "x"? I tried rownames(out) which did not work. Sorry. Does this sound like homework to you? On 7/12/2024 5:09 PM, Uwe Ligges wrote: > > > On 12.07.2024 10:54, Steven Yen wrote: >> Below is part a regression printout. How can I use "grep" to identify >> rows headed by variables (first column) with a certain label. In

It looks like a homework assignment. It also looks like you didn't read the documentation carefully enough. The 'len.out' argument in seq is solely for specifying the length of a sequence. The 'quantile' function omputes the empirical quantile of raw data in the vector 'x' at cumulative probabilit(y)(ies) given in the weights' argument, with interpolation I'm

Below is part a regression printout. How can I use "grep" to identify rows headed by variables (first column) with a certain label. In this case, I like to find variables containing "somewhath", "veryh",?"somewhatm", "verym", "somewhatc", "veryc","somewhatl", "veryl". The result should be an index 6:13 or

On 12.07.2024 10:54, Steven Yen wrote: > Below is part a regression printout. How can I use "grep" to identify > rows headed by variables (first column) with a certain label. In this > case, I like to find variables containing "somewhath", > "veryh",?"somewhatm", "verym", "somewhatc", "veryc","somewhatl",

Could not get "which" to work, but my grep worked. Thanks. > which(grep("very|somewhat",names(goprobit.p$est))) Error in which(grep("very|somewhat", names(goprobit.p$est))) : argument to 'which' is not logical > grep("very|somewhat",names(goprobit.p$est)) [1] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 On 7/12/2024

Hi, I am performing a two-way ANOVA (2 factors with 4 and 5 levels, respectively). If I'm interpreting the output of summary correctly, then the interaction between both factors is significant: ,---- | ## Two-way ANOVA with possible interaction: | > model1 <- aov(log(y) ~ xForce*xVel, data=mydataset) | | > summary(model1) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) |

Dear all, I'm new to frailty model. I have a question on the output from 'survival' pack. Below is the output. What does gamma1,2,3 refer to? How do I calculate joint hazard function or marginal hazard function using info below? Many thanks! Call: coxph(formula = surv ~ as.factor(tibia) + frailty(as.factor(bdcat)), data = try) n=877 (1 observation deleted due to missingness)

Now I've found another way to make it work. All I need is to pick up the names in the column (x.1.age...). > v<-pr(goprobit.p); v Maximum-Likelihood Estimates weighted = FALSE iterations = 5 logLik = -14160.75 finalHessian = TRUE Covariance matrix is Robust Number of parameters = 66 Sample size = 17922 est se t p g sig x.1.age 0.0341 0.0138 2.4766 0.0133 -3.8835e-04 ** x.1.sleep

Yes. Any of the following worked. The pipe greater than (|>) is neat! Thanks. > v<-goprobit.p$est > names(v) |> grep("somewhat|very", x = _) ?[1]? 6? 7? 8? 9 10 11 12 13 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 > v |> names() |> grep("somewhat|very", x = _) ?[1]? 6? 7? 8? 9 10 11 12 13 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >

Dear R-Users, I can't understand the behaviour of quasibinomial in lmer. It doesn't appear to be calculating a scaling parameter, and looks to be reducing the standard errors of fixed effects estimates when overdispersion is present (and when it is not present also)! A simple demo of what I'm seeing is given below. Comments appreciated? Thanks, Russell Millar Dept of Stat U.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download