search for: agree

...data.frame with several factor-variables to a numeric matrix. Now the problem is, that the order of the factor-labels don't match the order I would like to use. for example, let's assume I have this factor-variable in my data-frame: x <- factor(rep(1:4, 5), labels=c("slightly disagree", "disagree", "agree", "slightly agree")) Now I would like to convert this to a numeric vector so that disagree == 1, slightly disagree == 2, slightly agree == 3, and agree gets the value 4. but as.numeric(x) just converts the factor levels to numerical values a...

...s for the number of responses even in the event that there are 0 responses. For example, I have a data set that contains values of 2, 3, 4, and 5 but I would also like my graph to show that there are no 1's. I have attached the resulting graph. The appropriate values should be 0 - Strongly Disagree, 1 - Somewhat Disagree, 2 - Neutral, 7 - Somewhat Agree, and 12 - Strongly Agree. Any suggestions would be much appreciated as I am new to R. Thanks, Steve http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/file/n2315414/graph.jpg -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Plotting-range-of...

Hi All, I produced a barplot and made a horizontal legend below the graph. Because the results are from a survey, there are three levels, namely strongly disagree/disagree, neutral and strongly agree/agree. > rownames(survey)[1] "Strongly disagree/disagree" "Neutral" "Strongly agree/agree" As in the output above, there is a large space between "Neutral" and "Strongly agree/agree"....

I am working on modifying a REDCap survey. The data dictionary column for the response field has the following value. 1, Strongly disagree | 2, Disagree | 3, Agree | 4, Strongly Agree | 5, Don't Know | 6, Refuse to Answer | 7, Not Applicable I am wanting to convert this so that it looks as follows: 1, A. Strongly disagree | 2, B. Disagree | 3, C. Agree | 4, D. Strongly Agree | 5, E. Don't Know | 6, F. Refuse to Answer | 7, G...

..., 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 6, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 6, 2, 6, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 3, 5, 6, 5, 6, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 6, 2, 5, 6), value.labels = structure(c(6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1), .Names = c("Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Slightly Agree", "Slightly Disagree", "Disagree", "Strongly Disagree"))), SABAS06 = structure(c(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 6, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 3, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 3, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 5, 6, 6, 5...

..., (0 missing) ????? Hsa.37937 < 379.39?? to the right, improve=13.75358, (0 missing) ????? Hsa.692.2 < 842.305? to the right, improve=12.38710, (0 missing) ????? Hsa.1832? < 735.805? to the right, improve=11.90495, (0 missing) ? Surrogate splits: ????? Hsa.692.2 < 1086.655 to the right, agree=0.903, adj=0.571, (0 split) ????? Hsa.3306? < 170.515? to the left,? agree=0.887, adj=0.500, (0 split) ????? Hsa.601?? < 88.065?? to the left,? agree=0.887, adj=0.500, (0 split) ????? Hsa.692?? < 1251.99? to the right, agree=0.871, adj=0.429, (0 split) ????? Hsa.831?? < 281.54?? to the...

...re TRUE/FALSE needed ############################### ##Q2. Any quick function to transform a count/weight data.frame into a simple factor data.frame? Dislike "for" routine. (womensrole.factor <- womensrole[c(),1:2] ) k=0; for (i in as.integer(rownames(womensrole))){ if (womensrole$agree[i] > 0) for (j in 1:womensrole$agree[i]){ k=k+1; womensrole.factor[k,1:2]<-womensrole[i,1:2]; womensrole.factor[k,3]<-TRUE; } if (womensrole$disagree[i] > 0) for (j in 1:womensrole$disagree[i]){ k=k+1; womensrole.factor[k,1:2]<-womensrole[i,1:2]; womensrole.f...

...4, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 6, 5, > 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 6, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 6, 2, 6, 4, 5, > 5, 6, 5, 6, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, > 3, 5, 6, 5, 6, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 6, 2, 5, 6), value.labels = > structure(c(6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1), .Names = c("Strongly Agree", "Agree", > "Slightly Agree", "Slightly Disagree", "Disagree", "Strongly > Disagree"))), SABAS06 = structure(c(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 6, 3, 6, > 6, 6, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 3, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, > 6, 6, 3, 6, 6,...

I am having trouble generating a graph. I want to know the % of respondents who answered that they "strongly agree" or "agree" the "America owes R's ethnic group a better chance" (BTTRCHNC) and I want to organize it by racial group (RACESHRT). "BTTRCHNC" is organized ordinally from 1 through 5 with 1=Strongly Agree, 5=Strongly Disagree "RACESHRT" is ordinally or...

Removal of ans[nas] <- NA from the code of function 'ifelse' in R is not committed (yet). Why? -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 28/11/16, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: Subject: Re: [Rd] ifelse() woes ... can we agree on a ifelse2() ? Cc: R-devel at r-project.org, maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch Date: Monday, 28 November, 2016, 10:00 PM >>>>> Suharto Anggono Suharto Anggono via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> >>>>> on Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:14:01 +0000 writes: ......

Hi all, I'm sure this is simple but I don't get it. I have a table mytable<-c(rep("Disagree",37),rep("Agree",64)) table(mytable) this gives me Agree Disagree 64 37 but I didn't ask for it to be in alphabetic order. How can I get it in original order? Disagree Agree 37 64 Thanks, Jeff Jeffrey. M. Miller, PhD Statistics & Dat...

On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome. > > I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst possible outcome. > > Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never change the "3”, Yes, that is one reason. > but I don't und...

Hi, I am wondering if anyone can suggest how to test the equality of 2 proportions. The caveat here is that the 2 proportions were calculated from the same number of samples using 2 different tests. So essentially we are comparing 2 accuracy rates from same, say 100, samples. I think this is like a paired test, but don't know if really we need to consider the "paired" nature of the

...he two groups of variables. I'd like to find a way to put a little bit of space between the three from one grouping variable and the three from another grouping variable. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd be very grateful. Yours truly, Simon J. Kiss ###Random Data crime<-sample(c('agree' ,'disagree'), replace=TRUE, size=100) guns<-sample(c('agree','disagree'), replace=TRUE, size=100) climate<-sample(c('agree', 'disagree'), replace=TRUE, size=100) gender<-sample(c('male','both' ,'female'), replace=TRUE, si...

...body help me with following, please? Trying to make regression analysis. I have a huge dataframe with results from National Opinion Survey on Crime and Justice (www.abacon.com/fox/) with two variables G5 and N3 which are imported to R as ordered factors: > levels(noscj$G5) [1] "Strongly agree" "Agree" "Neither" [4] "Disagree" "Strongly disagree" > levels(noscj$N3) [1] "Serious problem" "Somewhat problem" "Minor problem" "Not a problem" > (missing values are duly rec...

Trying to install World of Warcraft on ubuntu 8.10, with the most recent version of wine, and I get to the end user license agreement, scroll all the way down, and I can't click agree on it to continue with installation. I'm using the download game client feature from my account on WorldofWarcraft.com, not the game CD's because I have a broken CD drive. If that helps any.

Hi Reid, > I agree that there could be more examples of JIT-based interpreters, and > I like your idea. When can you have it ready? :) soon, if you could just help me to get through some sticky places :) Agreed? (if "yes" then you could simply answer me privately and I will send you my concrete quest...

...esn't accept. And if it does, the rest will flee. > Personally, I think this is a very unstable situation. I read that as "if the committee has to engage in an enforcement action more than very rarely, then the community has already degenerated..." Which is a sentiment I can fully agree with. --paulr

...6 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two cpus involved in the handover will agree on the order.

...6 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two cpus involved in the handover will agree on the order.