search for: consensuses

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 ******************************************************************* Dr Andrew E Teschendorff Hutchison/MRC

...mean runs to add to the consensus would be necessary. I thought I could represent a k-means run as a binary tree or do a hierarchical agglomerative clustering of a matrix of cluster memberships (1s and 0s) from p k-mean runs but maybe this isn't the best approach. So, is there a metric on two consensuses of k-mean runs? Or another approach that I can implement in R. Many thanks for your suggestions. M. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help&quot...

On 1/30/15 1:17 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool wrote: > Although this has been discussed in the past, I think that given a few > conversations, it seems that it unfortunately needs to be brought up again. > > There seems to be some disagreement over the ideal location of the > unwinder (libunwind). Currently, libunwind resides in a subdirectory of > libc++abi. There seems to be some

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

On 15/01/2020 10:04, Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev wrote: >> "It isn't clear how to propose some changes in the first place, and it >> is often unclear who the decision makers are." > I feel that patches and RFCs are well established*and documented* [1,2] > ways to propose changes. In addition, the *-dev lists, IRC, etc. do > provide ways to clear

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

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 address is and where one can found my blog.

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

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

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:50 AM Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 31/12/2018 04:54, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Do those uses conform to the guide? If they don't, then should the > guide be updated? Are the types there 'obvious’? > > > > If/when we revise the policy, then it would make sense for >

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)

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

Hi Jim/Evan, We had this discussion last year, and I think it's time we revisited this issue again. Many of us (Linaro, ARM, CodeAurora) have been using the ARM integrated assembler for compiling large projects, the test-suite, buildbots, and there seem to be no bug pending on them, with the obscure cases being a few unsupported directives, some of which are already being implemented, while

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

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 can join the thread and say

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

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

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

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