similar to: Question on binomial data

Hi all, I can't find the error in the binomial GLM I have done. I want to use that because there are more than one explanatory variables (all categorical) and a binary response variable. This is how my data set looks like: > str(data) 'data.frame': 1004 obs. of 5 variables: $ site : int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... $ sex : Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1": NA NA NA

Dears useRs, I have 2 factors, (for the sake of explanation - A and B), with 4 levels each. I've already fitted a negative binomial generalized linear model to my data, and now I need to split the factors in two distinct analysis of deviance table:  - A within B1, A within B2, A within B3 and A within B4  - B within A1, B within A2, B within A3 and B within A4 Here is a code that illustrates

Hi there - I am using R1.5.1 on WinNT and the latest MASS (Venables and Ripley) library. Running the following code: >minimod<-glm(miniSF~gtbt*f.batch+log(mxjd),data=gtbt,family="binomial") >summary(minimod,cor=F) Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 0.91561 0.32655 2.804 0.005049 ** gtbtgt 0.47171

Hi all, In my continuous transition of GLIM to R I try to make a glm with binomial errors. The data file have 3 vectors: h -> the factor that is ajusted (have 3 levels) d -> number of animais alive (the response) n -> total number of animals To test proportion of alive, make d/n. In GLIM: $yvar d$ $error binomial n$ $fit +h$ scale deviance = 25.730 (change = -9.138) at cycle 4

Hi, can anyone help with this: I am trying to analyse some data in the form of proportions with the glm function in R and S-plus. When comparing different models with an F test, I get different results from R and S-plus. Here's an example (there are two factors and an interaction in the full model "glm1<-glm(resp~time*set,family=binomial"): In R, entering

Hi, I have a data set with 999 observations, for each of them I have data on four variables: site, colony, gender (quite a few NA values), and cohort. This is how the data set looks like: > str(dispersal) 'data.frame': 999 obs. of 4 variables: $ site : Factor w/ 2 levels "1","2": 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ... $ gender: Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1":

Full_Name: S?ren Faurby Version: 2.4.1 and 2.7.2 OS: Submission from: (NULL) (192.38.46.92) There appear to be a bug in the estimation of significance in the binomial model in GLM. This bug apparently appears when the correlation between two variables is to strong. Such as this dummy example c(0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1)->a a->b m1<-glm(a~b, binomial) summary(m1) It is sufficient that all

##Q1. confint.glm(...) fails for an example of HSAUR data("womensrole", package = "HSAUR"); ## summary(womensrole); womensrole_glm_2 <- glm(fm2, data = womensrole,family = binomial()) ## summary(womensrole_glm_2); confint(womensrole_glm_2); ## -------Fail--------- # Waiting for profiling to be done... # Error in if (any(y < 0 | y > 1)) stop("y values must be 0

Dear all, I am new to R and my question may be trivial to you... I am doing a GLM with binomial errors to compare proportions of species in different categories of seed sizes (4 categories) between 2 sites. In the model summary the residual deviance is much higher than the degree of freedom (Residual deviance: 153.74 on 4 degrees of freedom) and even after correcting for overdispersion by

I am attempting to run a glm with a binomial model to analyze proportion data. I have been following Crawley's book closely and am wondering if there is an accepted standard for how much is too much overdispersion? (e.g. change in AIC has an accepted standard of 2). In the example, he fits several models, binomial and quasibinomial and then accepts the quasibinomial. The output for residual

Hi everyone, In the reviewing system, after a patch is approved, what should be the following step? I assume I'll have to make sure the patch hasn't broken anything, before pushing it, so I'll wan't to run a full build+tests, probably in a remote sterile environment (like a jenkins server). Do we have an integration system like this? Or should I just trust the build+tests on my

Hi all, Could somebody be so kind to explain to me what is the saturated model on which deviance and degrees of freedom are calculated when fitting a binomial glm? Everything makes sense if I fit the model using as response a vector of proportions or a two-column matrix. But when the response is a factor and counts are specified via the "weights" argument, I am kind of lost as far as

Dear r list,   I am using glm.nb in the MASS package to fit negative binomial models to data on manta ray abundance, and AICctab in the bbmle package to compare model IC.  However, I need to test for the goodness of fit of the full model, and have not been able to find a Pearson's Chi Squared statistic in any of the output.  Am I missing it somewhere?  Is there a way to run the test using

THANKS so very much for your help (previous and future!). I have a two follow-up questions. 1) You say that dispersion = 1 by definition ....dispersion changes from 1 to 13.5 when I go from binomial to quasibinomial....does this suggest that I should use the binomial? i.e., is the dispersion factor more important that the 2) Is there a cutoff for too much overdispersion - mine seems to be

Hi useRs, I'm experiencing something quite weird with glm() and weights, and maybe someone can explain what I'm doing wrong. I have a dataset where each row represents a single case, and I run glm(...,family="binomial") and get my coefficients. However, some of my cases have the exact same values for predictor variables, so I should be able to aggregate up my data frame and

Hi, I had a logit regression, but don't really know how to handle the "Warning message: non-integer #successes in a binomial glm! in: eval(expr, envir, enclos)" problem. I had the same logit regression without weights and it worked out without the warning, but I figured it makes more sense to add the weights. The weights sum up to one. Could anyone give me some hint? Thanks a lot!

Hi i would like to use some graphs or tables to explore the data and make some sensible guesses of what to expect to see in a glm model to assess if toxin concentration and sex have a relationship with the kill rate of rats. But i cant seem to work it out as i have two predictor variables~help?Thanks.:) Here's my data. >

Hello I have a problem when fitting a mixed generalised linear model with the lmer-function in the Matrix package, version 0.98-7. I have a respons variable (sfox) that is 1 or 0, whether a roe deer fawn is killed or not by red fox. This is expected to be related to e.g. the density of red fox (roefoxratio) or other variables. In addition, we account for family effects by adding the mother

Hello everybody I want to compare the proportions of germinated seeds (seed batches of size 10) of three plant types (1,2,3) with a glm with binomial data (following the method in Crawley: Statistics,an introduction using R, p.247). The problem seems to be that in two plant types (2,3) all plants have proportions = 0. I give you my data and the model I'm running: success failure

Hi everyone, I am going crazy over here! :) I just want to be able to use --clean with my mongrel_rails cluster::start command. I''ve upgraded to mongrel_cluster 1.0.1.1 and mongrel_rails 1.0.1. my config file is in /etc/mongrel_rails/config.yml and contains: --- log_file: log/mongrel.log port: 8000 pid_file: /var/run/mongrel_cluster/mongrel.pid servers: 2 address: 127.0.0.1 environment: