Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "0.1285".
Did you mean:
0.125
2003 Mar 06
2
anova subhypotheses
Hello all,
A really noddy question for you all: I''m trying without success to do some subhypothesis testing. Using simple anova model, with a toy dataset from a book. I have four factors A,B,C,D, and wish to test mu_C = mu_D. This is what I have tried:
> contrasts(infants$group,how.many=1) <- c(0,0,1,-1)
> contrasts(infants$group)
[,1]
A 0
B 0
C 1
2011 Feb 08
1
Error in example Glm rms package
Hi all!
I've got this error while running
example(Glm)
library("rms")
> example(Glm)
Glm> ## Dobson (1990) Page 93: Randomized Controlled Trial :
Glm> counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12)
Glm> outcome <- gl(3,1,9)
Glm> treatment <- gl(3,3)
Glm> f <- glm(counts ~ outcome + treatment, family=poisson())
Glm> f
Call: glm(formula = counts ~
2009 Aug 19
3
Sweave output from print.summary.glm is too wide
Hi all
I am preparing a document using Sweave; a really useful tool. But I am having a problem.
Consider this toy example Sweave file:
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
<<echo=TRUE,results=verbatim>>=
options(width=40) # Set width to 40 characters
hide <- capture.output(example(glm)) # Create an example of the problem, but hide the output
summary(glm.D93) #
2001 Dec 14
1
Logistic regression : dicrepancies between glm and nls ?
Dear list,
I'm trying to learn how to use nlme to be able to fit ad analyse
mixed-model logistic regressions. In order to keep things simple, I
started by the simplest possible model : a one (fixed-effect ...)
continuous variable. This problem is, of course, solved by glm, but I
wanted to look at a "hand-made" nls fit, in order to be able to
"generalize" to nlme
2008 Jan 05
2
Behavior of ordered factors in glm
I have a variable which is roughly age categories in decades. In the
original data, it came in coded:
> str(xxx)
'data.frame': 58271 obs. of 29 variables:
$ issuecat : Factor w/ 5 levels "0 - 39","40 - 49",..: 1 1 1 1...
snip
I then defined issuecat as ordered:
> xxx$issuecat<-as.ordered(xxx$issuecat)
When I include issuecat in a glm model, the result
2006 Nov 21
1
NEWBIE: Help explaining use of lm()?
I'm attempting the heruclean task of teaching myself Introductory
Statistics and R at the same time. I'm working through Peter Dalgaard's
Introductory Statistics with R, but don't understand why the answer to
one of the exercises works. I'm hoping someone will have the patience to
explain the answer to me, both in the statistics and R areas.
Exercise 6.1 says:
The zelazo data
2006 Jan 29
1
extracting 'Z' value from a glm result
Hello R users
I like to extract z values for x1 and x2. I know how to extract coefficents
using model$coef
but I don't know how to extract z values for each of independent variable. I
looked around
using names(model) but I couldn't find how to extract z values.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
TM
#########################################################
>summary(model)
Call:
2012 Nov 23
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] costing optimisations
On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote:
>
>> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes.
>>
>>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are
>>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions.
>>
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Hi, Sean:
I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a
*BIG* change
to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to
populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I
saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations.
Attacking
these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting
2013 Jul 18
3
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got
chance to list a detailed pass order
for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations.
This is wish-list in our mind:
pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or
just inline tiny func), get rid of
all loop xforms...
post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only