search for: signifcant

Dear list, I calculated the kappa-accuracy for two differnt classifications. How can I test now the two kappa-value for significance? thanks, Mark ..................................................................... Markus Schwarz Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin Eidg. Forschungsanstalt WSL Forschungsprogramm Musterland Z??rcherstrasse 111 CH-8903 Birmensdorf Telefon +41-44-739 22 87 Fax

Greetings: I'm running R-1.9.1 on Fedora Core 2 Linux. I tested a proportional odds logistic regression with MASS's polr and Design's lrm. Parameter estimates between the 2 are consistent, but the standard errors are quite different, and the conclusions from the t and Wald tests are dramatically different. I cranked the "abstol" argument up quite a bit in the polr

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Jonathan Gray<jsg at goblin.cx> wrote: > This seems to go against notes such as > http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance > which claim clang is signifcantly faster than gcc. I think the URL you want is actually http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html. The difference isn't as dramatic when you consider code generation, at least for the moment. > Below are some times and the larger object files when > compiling an i386 OpenBSD kernel at -O2...

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 04:41:55PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Jonathan Gray<jsg at goblin.cx> wrote: > > This seems to go against notes such as > > http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance > > which claim clang is signifcantly faster than gcc. > > I think the URL you want is actually > http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html. The difference isn't as > dramatic when you consider code generation, at least for the moment. Are these scripts to break down the time spent in different stages available somewh...

...On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 04:41:55PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Jonathan Gray<jsg at goblin.cx> wrote: >> > This seems to go against notes such as >> > http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance >> > which claim clang is signifcantly faster than gcc. >> >> I think the URL you want is actually >> http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html.  The difference isn't as >> dramatic when you consider code generation, at least for the moment. > > Are these scripts to break down the time spent > in diff...

...mentation does what it is supposed to do. However, as already mentioned, in all benchmarks I've seen so far performance seems to stay the same at best and often even suffers slightly. Which is suprising because for C++ code using Clang's version of IR-level instrumentation & PGO brings signifcant gains (up to 5-10% from what I've seen in benchmarks for Firefox). One thing we noticed early on is that disabling the pre-inlining pass (`-disable-preinline`) seems to consistently improve the situation for Rust code. Doing that we sometimes see performance wins of almost 1% over not using PG...

...ollows: Controls Procedural Fished Raked 0 1 1 Fished 0 0 1 As a newcomer to R (& stats!), I am unsure as to how to proceed. i am currently adopting the approach model<-glm(biomass~Shore*Raked*Species+Shore*Fished*Species) And then run post-hoc adjusted pairwise comparisons between signifcant terms. Does this look OK to you guys? Many, many thanks Chris -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/R-stats-newcomer-help-tp3764819p3764819.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...17, 2009 at 04:41:55PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Jonathan Gray<jsg at goblin.cx> wrote: >>>> This seems to go against notes such as >>>> http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance >>>> which claim clang is signifcantly faster than gcc. >>> >>> I think the URL you want is actually >>> http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html. The difference isn't as >>> dramatic when you consider code generation, at least for the moment. >> >> Are these scripts to break down the...

I have a set of data that comprises genome numbers in single eggs from three different parasite clones - 3D7, HB3, and MIX. I can draw a boxplot of the genome numbers for each clonefed but how do I carry out a t test or ANOVA to compare if the means are signifcantly different? (Data is listed below) Many thanks, Georgina Humphreys clonefed genomes HB3 21.3 HB3 23.5 HB3 25.9 3D7 27.2 HB3 28.1 MIX 35.1 MIX 37.9 MIX 42.1 MIX 42.4 HB3 46.3 HB3 46.3 MIX 48.4 MIX 52.1 HB3 54.6 MIX 55.4 3D7 57.6 HB3 58.4 3D7 62.1 MIX 63.6 MIX 66.5 3D7 69.1 3D7 76.2 MIX 77.5 MIX 8...

So it would appear that llvm-gcc and clang are both slower than gcc4 which is infamous for being slow at compiling code, and yes this is with a release build/--enable-optimizations. This seems to go against notes such as http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance which claim clang is signifcantly faster than gcc. Below are some times and the larger object files when compiling an i386 OpenBSD kernel at -O2 on an Intel Atom based laptop. The significantly larger code size is rather disturbing as it means binaries can't fit on space constrained installation media for example. As the l...

...(s7); } *** - Linux/ppc64 (gcc 4.7.2): main: [initialise s7 on stack] ld 9,112(31) srdi 3,9,8 ; shift struct into least significant bits = remove tail padding bl f7 - AIX/ppc64 (gcc 4.8.1): [initialise s7, identical code as on Linux] ld 3,112(31) ; keep struct aligned in most signifcant bits (i.e., with tail padding) bl .f7 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140801/a5f5913f/attachment.html>

I was surprised to find that just changing the base level of a factor variable changed the number of significant coefficients in the solution. I was surprised at this and want to know how I should choose the order of the factors, if the order affects the result. Here is the small example. It is taken from 'The R Book', Crawley p. 365. The data is at

...t;> However, as already mentioned, in all benchmarks I've seen so >> far performance seems to stay the same at best and often even >> suffers slightly. Which is suprising because for C++ code >> using Clang's version of IR-level instrumentation & PGO brings >> signifcant gains (up to 5-10% from what I've seen in >> benchmarks for Firefox). >> >> One thing we noticed early on is that disabling the >> pre-inlining pass (`-disable-preinline`) seems to consistently >> improve the situation for Rust code. Doing that we sometimes >&gt...

...g is not a problem with random forests and so I was wondering what I could do to improve the results -I've tried playing with the number of trees and the value of m_try but I dont see much change. Is there anything that I can do to improve the results for a random forest model? (Are there any signifcant papers, apart from Breiman, that I should be reading related to random forests?) 2) My second question is related to interpretation of the variable importance plot using var.imp.plot(). I realise that the variables are ordered in order of decreasing importance. However for example I see that there...

Hi I have data from 12 subjects. The measurement is log(expression) of a particular gene and can be assumed to be normally distributed. The 12 subjects are divided into the following groups: Infected, Vaccinated, Lesions - 3 measurements Infected, Vaccintaed, No Lesions - 2 measurements Infected, Not Vaccinated, Lesions - 4 measurements Uninfected, Not Vaccinated, No Lesions - 3 measurements

...therefore blocks the effect of treatment A when used together. From what I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong, the parameter estimates from summary(model.nlme) are not correct for main effects if a significant interaction is present. For example in my data treatment B alone has no signifcant effect in the anova but the interaction term A:B is significant. I believe The summary estimate for B is the estimate across all levels of A. What I want to do is pull out the estimate for B when A is not present. I suppose I can do it manually from the list of coefficients from nls or fit a on...

..., in all benchmarks I've seen so > >>> far performance seems to stay the same at best and often even > >>> suffers slightly. Which is suprising because for C++ code > >>> using Clang's version of IR-level instrumentation & PGO brings > >>> signifcant gains (up to 5-10% from what I've seen in > >>> benchmarks for Firefox). > >>> > >>> One thing we noticed early on is that disabling the > >>> pre-inlining pass (`-disable-preinline`) seems to consistently > >>> improve the situation f...

On Jul 17, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Jonathan Gray<jsg at goblin.cx> wrote: >> This seems to go against notes such as >> http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance >> which claim clang is signifcantly faster than gcc. > > I think the URL you want is actually > http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html. The difference isn't as > dramatic when you consider code generation, at least for the moment. On Mac OS X / x86, llvm-gcc is easily > 20% faster than gcc 4.2 at - O2 / -O3....

Hello, Does anyone knows how to do the plots from discriminant analysis (lda and qda)? Is there any computed function to do the stepwise procedure? thank you in advance Marta

Hello! I do not understand what is meant by: "aic" and "bic" follow a top-down strategy based on the Akaike's and Schwarz's information criteria in the datails to the ADF.test function. What does a "top-down strategy" mean? Probably the respective criterion is minimized and the mode vector contains the lag orders at which the criterion attains it