search for: consensus

Hi, I wish to build consensus groups/tree from a set of bootstraps from a clustering algorithm such as hc or k-means, but can't find an R-function that does this. Does anyone know of an R procedure/function which allows one to build such consensus groups/tree .? Many thanks, Andrew *************************************...

...above so I'll describe it. I actually want to combine numerous k-means classifications into 1. Because subsequent runs of the the k-means procedure are going to give different cluster memberships (because of different starting points), I wanted to run it a bunch of times and combine it into a consensus. But to do that, I wanted to quantify how different a consensus of , for example, 3 k-mean runs is from a consensus of 4 k-mean runs (denoted here by d(3,4)). Presumably, the sequence d(3,4), d(4,5), ..., d(p,p+1) would keep decreasing and at some point I would be satisfied that no further k-mean...

...once more: what can we do about this > concern? Is moving it to a separate repository acceptable? Or perhaps > moving it to compiler-rt is palatable to more of the involved developers > (as much as I may prefer an alternate solution). Last time we brought this up, there was only partial consensus, and then someone arbitrarily declared total consensus (without compelling arguments in any particular direction) that we were going to move it to compiler_rt. Then the discussion fell on the floor because no-one had time to actually do the move. Please, let's not let that happen again thi...

Dear All, I have a list of models(1000) which have variable scores from 20 different method. I would like to rank models using consensus approach based on high scores from different methods.Is there any function available in R for this purpose? I will appreciate any pointers in this regard. Thank you very much in Advance, Mallika *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Mallika Veeramalai, PhD, Postdoct...

...is came up at the WICT workshop (which still doesn't have a writeup on the LLVM web site) and has previously come up in Cambridge and Paris LLVM socials that I've attended and at EuroLLVM: There is no formal definition of 'the LLVM community' and therefore anything that requires consensus of the community is difficult to define. I have spoken to several people who have believed based on mailing list discussions that consensus on an issue is one thing, but then the decision has been taken to do the other option, often with the justification that this was the consensus of the peo...

Dear Listers, I emailed the list a few days ago about how to bootstrap a community matrix (species by sites) and get a consensus tree with node support. A friend pointed out that a similar question remained unanswered in 2004. I wish to re-word my question: is anyone aware of a package / method to obtain a majority-rule consensus tree from x distance matrices ? Is anyone using R to generate phylogenetic trees with node su...

Hi guys, I'd like to know if there is a consensus about linking to personal websites on the personal wiki page every new user gets in the wiki. I maintain several games in the AppDB and created a wiki page recently describing some tricks for AppDB maintainers. I also created a personal wiki page, describing what I am doing on wine, what my email...

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 16:50, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: >> Ie. the current series is already dead, no matter what we do > > But this last statement seems odd. So far, there looks to be a fairly good consensus from a number of experienced llvm developers that the approach seems like a good idea, both on this thread, and from skimming the earlier threads you linked from your original message. > > Doesn't that mean that the reasonable next step is to continue moving forward with the existing patc...

I see in the archives that using a common extension for markdown has been discussed. Has an official consensus ever been reached? Thanks -- Brett

...the 'reality at the coalface' anymore? Should those uses of auto be > changed? > > > > My understanding is that there has been no widely understood or accepted > policy, so different coders and reviewers are doing different things. > > One of the things which has no consensus here is whether 'auto' may be > used in lambdas (using c++-14). Under the current guidelines, my understanding is that nothing prevents to use auto in lambda in order to "make the code more readable" when "the type is already obvious from the context" or "when...

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 January 2015 at 20:43, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > Last time we brought this up, there was only partial consensus, and then > > someone arbitrarily declared total consensus (without compelling > arguments > > in any particular direction) that we were going to move it to > compiler_rt. > > Then the discussion fell on the floor because no-one had time to > actually do > > the mov...

Hi All: Just wanted to wind this up and summarize the results. Although there were a few no votes, it looks like there's a consensus for adding a `isa_and_nonnull` type operator. While there were some who preferred `isa_nonnull`, it wasn't overwhelming, and since `isa_and_nonnull` is already committed, I'm going to leave it as `isa_and_nonnull` for the time being. Thanks for all the comments. don On Thu, Apr 11, 201...

...ng in the kernel as of now. That's why the LLVMLinux guys still use the -no-integrated-as option by default for both x86 and ARM. Also, their plans is to zero the patches to the kernel *before* making sure the IAS works unpatched, which could take a long time. In a nutshell, it seems to be our consensus that the integrated assembly can now be turned on by default on ARM, and we should add -no-integrated-as for the cases where it fails (like the kernel). Do you agree with this consensus, and does it work as expected on Darwin? cheers, --renato

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:58, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > See the reply I just posted to Hal. I am not sure we've made a decision > to abandon the current patches. We may in fact decide that, but I > haven't seen consensus for doing so yet. In fact I've seen the opposite > -- that people want to move forward with the scalable types. I did see that reply. While, like Hal, I do understand some concerns on introducing a radical new concept to IR (the reason why I started this thread), I'm unaware (mainly b...

Maybe we can hit the pause button on this issue of a survey vs consensus-building. I think it's a distraction from the main issue here, and it makes it harder for everyone else to participate in the thread. That said, I really do think that perspectives like Justin B's below are important. That is, if people have a problem with the monorepo, it is useful they...

On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >> If you do not want to use polly, you could use ISL >> http://freecode.com/projects/isl to set up the dependence problem and >> use ISL's ILP to solve it. > > isl is an LGPL project. It is not clear to me what the general consensus > would be on having a core analysis pass carry an LGPL dependency. This is fine for something that wants to live out of tree or be a secondary subproject, but isn't acceptable for something that wants to go into the mainline llvm repository and be a default part of the compiler. -Chris

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 02:37 David Chisnall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 22/04/2019 15:15, Don Hinton via llvm-dev wrote: > > Although there were a few no votes, it looks like there's a consensus > > for adding a `isa_and_nonnull` type operator. While there were some who > > preferred `isa_nonnull`, it wasn't overwhelming, and since > > `isa_and_nonnull` is already committed, I'm going to leave it as > > `isa_and_nonnull` for the time being. > > Maybe...

Dear All, I get some problems using the 'phylo' and dissimilarity functions in R. I converted an output from 'hclust' into an order of phylo so as to be able to use the 'consensus' function on it. Each time I submit the consensus codes, my computer hangs. When I tried to see what the contents of the object converted into order phylo is, I get the message "Phylogenetic tree with 0 tips and 7 internal nodes. Tip labels: NULL Rooted; includes branch lengths"....

Hi, I'm new to this list, sorry if my question is off-topic - I already see some controversy around a related question last month, "Universal syntax for Markdown". I'm wondering whether among the many extensions and flavors of markdown there are any extensions that support "Highlighting" of specific portions of content - not in the sense of code highlighters,

On 6 February 2014 13:59, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de>wrote: > This is not true. Even for nounwind, you want to get basic tables so > that backtrace(3) works. > Hi Joerg, It's a matter of consensus, I believe. Is it the general consensus that we will *always* want unwind tables to exist? Code size is a clear reason to not want unwind tables at all, but there might not be many more. If the general consensus is that unwind tables are a must, and should only be turned off in special cases, then...