Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "basline".
Did you mean:
baseline
2007 Nov 01
1
Start plot really at baselines x=0, y=0
Dear R
Plots without par arguments do start not at zero (means, the box around is somwhere outside the specified plotrange). How to start really from zero, pe. basline y=0?
every standart par works like this:
x<-seq(1,10,0.1)
y<-sin(x)
plot(sin(x))
Thanks for help
Marc
--
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
2009 Feb 23
1
predicting cumulative hazard for coxph using predict
Hi
I am estimating the following coxph function with stratification and frailty?where each person had multiple events.
m<-coxph(Surv(dtime1,status1)~gender+cage+uplf+strata(enum)+frailty(id),xmodel)
?
> head(xmodel)
id enum dtime status gender cage uplf
1 1008666 1 2259.1412037 1 MA 0.000 0
2 1008666 2 36.7495023 1 MA 2259.141 0
3 1008666
2011 Aug 23
1
P values for vglm(zibinomial) function in VGAM
...DielM DielN Tidal.phaseNT Tidal.phaseST
0.4684409796 0.5285424555 0.5526565030 0.4002451101 0.5579507181
Tidal.cycleF Tidal.cycleH Tidal.cycleL
0.5457011061 0.4704164848 0.4801883607
But these seem to be giving strange results, those which are clearly more
different to the basline levels (Autumn, D, bl and E) are coming up as least
significant. Perhaps it is my interpretation.
I couldnt follow
2*min(pt(coef(summary(mod2)), 30569), 1-pt(coef(summary(mod2)), 30569))
??
Does anyone know what I might be doing wrong or how to go about the last
code?
I have read as much as I...
2006 Jul 17
11
ZFS bechmarks w/8 disk raid - Quirky results, any thoughts?
...;'m getting distinctly non-linear scaling here.
Writes: 4 disks gives me 123MB/sec. Raid0 was giving me 270/8 =33Mb/sec with cpu to spare (roughly half on what each individual disk should be capable of). Here I''m getting 123/4= 30Mb/sec, or should that be 123/3= 41Mb/sec?
Using 30 as a basline, I''d be expecting to see twice that with 8 disks (240ish?). What I end up with is ~135, Clearly not good scaling at all.
The really interesting numbers happen at 7 disks - it''s slower then with 4, in all tests.
I ran it 3x to be sure.
Note this was a native 7 disk raid-z, it wasn&...