similar to: plot.correlogram

Dear all, I'm using the correlogram function in the spatial library to calculate spatial correlograms of radar data. However, I'm finding that the resulting values are often outside the range [-1,1], usually only at larger distances of separation. I'm not sure whether to be overly concerned about this, or dismiss it as some artefact of the data. Has anyone had similar experiences?

Hi: I think I found an error in plot.lm with the option which=5, of course I can be wrong , as usually happen, but I had work on it for a while and show it to some other people that work with R, and so far I don't see what I can be interpreting wrong. I also worked over the plot.lm's code and change some lines to get what I call "the right plot", if any body is

I've been comparing variables among objects (taxa) related by known trees, using phylogentically independent contrasts in the ape package, and want to move on to more complex models e.g. by using gls with appropriate correlation terms. My trees contain lots of (hard) polytomies and information about ancestors, which I've been including- creating fully dichotomous trees by using zero branch

Hi, I am very new to R and trying to bring my plot of residuals to my LaTex document, and seems as I need some help. I first tried the example from the help file, e.g. pictex(file="model1.tex", width=5, height=4) plot(1:11,(-5:5)^2, type='b', main="Simple Example Plot") dev.off() this worked fine in LaTex when I did : \centerline{\input{Rplots.tex}} However, with

Dear all, I don't understand the following behaviour: Running compar.gee (in library ape ) with and without the option 'data', it give me different results Example: .... Start R .... > load("eiber.RData") > ls() [1] "gee.na" "mydata" "mytree" > library(ape) > # runnig with the option data= mydata > compar.gee(alt ~ R,

I would like to make a correlogram in which I also have a correlation matrix instead of one of the panels. Is that possible? -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Correlograms-tp4283245p4283245.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hello and thanks in advance I am running a glm in R the code is as follows with residual diagnostic code below model4<-glm(Biomass~(Treatment+Time+Site)^2, data=bobB, family=quasi(link="log", variance="mu")) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) plot(model2) to test the effect of grazing exclusion of feral horses for a Phd with following factors: Treatment - 3 levels which are grazed

Sorry, I just posted the email below but realised I did not give a name or details, would it be possible to adjust before posting and send what is below, sorry again, first time user... From: Joanne Lenehan [mailto:jlenehan@une.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2009 3:51 PM To: 'r-help@r-project.org' Subject: GLM Repeated measures test of assumptions: e.g. test for sphericity e.g.

Dear community, I've check it while working, but just to reassure myself. Let's say we have 2 models: model1 <- lm(vdep ~ log(v1) + v2 + v3 + I(v4^2) , data = mydata) model2 <- lm(vdep ~ log(v1) + v2 + v3 + v4^2, data = mydata) So in model1 you really square v4; and in model2, v4*^2 *doesn't do anything, does it? Model2 could be rewritten: model2b <- lm(vdep ~

I'm trying to make correlograms using corrgram. See below for a simple example. #### library(corrgram) data(baseball) vars1 <- c("Assists","Atbat","Errors","Hits","Homer","logSal") vars2 <- c("Putouts","RBI","Runs","Walks","Years")

[cc'ing back to r-help] On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:39 PM, matteo dossena <matteo.dossena at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks a lot, > > just to make sure i got it right, > > if (using the real dataset) from the LogLikelihood ratio test model1 isn't "better" than model, > means that temporal auto correlation isn't seriously affecting the model? yes. (or

Good day, I'm ran aov () and lme() on a split-plot using a 64-bit machine. For aov() I don't see the values for ErrorA, F-value and p-value in the output. For lme(), output is different from results from a 32-bit. Please see codes used and corresponding output. Is my code wrong and/or not sufficient or is this a compatibility issue? ************** model1<-aov(Y~Main*Sub +

Dear R-experts, Here below my R code. I get a NaN response for gam with mgcv library. How to solve that problem? Many thanks. ######################################################### library(mgcv) ? y=c(23,24,34,40,42,43,54,34,52,54,23,32,35,45,46,54,34,36,37,48) x1=c(0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.8,0.9,0.1,0.7,0.67,0.98,0.56,0.54,0.34,0.12,0.47,0.52,0.87,0.56,0.71,0.6)

R-help, I'm using the "update" command for a multiple regression model and it is just not working: > update(model1, . ~ . – temp:wind:rad,data=ozone.pollution) Error: unexpected input in "model2<-update(model1, . ~ . –" > summary(model1) Call: lm(formula = ozone ~ temp * wind * rad + I(rad^2) + I(temp^2) + I(wind^2), data = ozone.pollution) Residuals:

Hi ! We study the effect of several variables on fruit set for 44 individuals (plants). For each individual, we have the number of fruits, the number of flowers and a value for each variable. Here is our first model in R : y <- cbind(indnbfruits,indnbflowers); model1 <-glm(y~red*yellow+I(red^2)+I(yellow^2)+densite8+I(densite8^2)+freq8_4+I (freq8_4^2), quasibinomial); - We have

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":

Hi I am fitting an arima model to some time series X. When I was comparing the fitted values of the model to the true time series I realized that the true time series lags one time step behind the fitted values of the arima model. And this is the case for any model. When I did a simple linear regression using lm to check, I also find the same results, that the true series lags behind the

Hi, I am performing a two-way ANOVA (2 factors with 4 and 5 levels, respectively). If I'm interpreting the output of summary correctly, then the interaction between both factors is significant: ,---- | ## Two-way ANOVA with possible interaction: | > model1 <- aov(log(y) ~ xForce*xVel, data=mydataset) | | > summary(model1) | Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) |

Hi all, I'm hoping I might be able to get some help with some issues specifying priors for MCMCglmm. I'm trying to fit a gaussian glmm using MCMCglmm to a data set with two (correlated) response variables. The response variables are both logit-transformed proportions (there are a few reasons why I've chosen these with gaussian error over binomal glmm, which I won't go into).

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