similar to: survey package (3.18)

Hi everyone, apologies if the answer to this is in an obvious place. I've been searching for about a day and haven't found anything.. I'm trying to replicate Stata's confidence intervals in R with the survey package, and the numbers are very very close but not exact. My ultimate goal is to replicate Berkeley's SDA website with R (http://sda.berkeley.edu/), which seems to

tryCatch() is good for catching errors but not so good for warnings, as it does not let you resume evaluating the expression that emitted the warning. withCallingHandlers(), with its companion invokeRestart(), lets you collect the warnings while letting the evaluation run to completion. Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at

1. I did not attempt to sort through your voluminous code. But I suspect you are trying to reinvent wheels. 2. I don't understand this: "I've failed to find a solution after much searching of various R related forums." A web search on "error handling in R" **immediately** brought up ?tryCatch, which I think is what you want. If not, you should probably explain why it

Hi, I am trying to automate the creation of tables for some simply analyses. There are lots and lots of tables, thus the creation of a user-defined function to make and output them to excel. My problem is that some of the analyses have convergence issues, which I want captured and included in the output so the folks looking at them know how to view those estimates. I am successfully able to do

You can capture warnings by using withCallingHandlers. Here is an example, its help file has more information. dataList <- list( A = data.frame(y=c(TRUE,TRUE,TRUE,FALSE,FALSE), x=1:5), B = data.frame(y=c(TRUE,TRUE,FALSE,TRUE,FALSE), x=1:5), C = data.frame(y=c(FALSE,FALSE,TRUE,TRUE,TRUE), x=1:5)) withWarnings <- function(expr) { .warnings <- NULL # warning handler will

Hello, I have got a cluster sample using an election dataset where I already had the final results of a county-specific election. I am trying to figure out what would be the best sampling design for my data. The structure of the dataset is: 1) polling station (in general schools where people vote, for a county, for example, there are 15 polling stations) 2) inside each polling station, there

I am trying to age standardize using the svystandardize package in R. I have successfully managed to hit my SUDAAN based targets for estimates by sex, but not the total. The total is only a little different, but I'd like some help knowing why it isn't exact. I've included the SUDAAN code that generates the targets and my R script (and output) that I have so far. I can't supply the

Version 3.20 of the survey package is percolating through CRAN The major additions since the last announcement on this list (3.18, in September) are - database-backed designs can now use replicate weights - some multivariate statistics: principal components, factor analysis. The NEWS file has a more detailed list of additions and changes. -thomas Thomas Lumley Assoc.

Version 3.20 of the survey package is percolating through CRAN The major additions since the last announcement on this list (3.18, in September) are - database-backed designs can now use replicate weights - some multivariate statistics: principal components, factor analysis. The NEWS file has a more detailed list of additions and changes. -thomas Thomas Lumley Assoc.

Hi, I'm trying to get standard errors for some of the variables in my data frame. One of the questions on my survey is whether faculty coordinate across curriculum to include Arts Education as subject matter. All the responses are coded in zeros and ones obviously. For some of the other variables I have a 2 for those that responded with "Don't Know". I'm getting NA for

Version 3.3 of "survey" is percolating through CRAN. Since the last announcement on this list, version 2.9, the main additions are calibration estimators: linear, bounded linear, raking ratio, bounded raking ratio, logit. Other updates and bug fixes are described in http://faculty.washington.edu/tlumley/survey/NEWS -thomas Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor,

Version 3.26 of the survey package is percolating through CRAN. Since the last announcement on this list, of version 3.20, about 18 months ago, the main changes are -- an option to calculate replicate-weight variances from sums of squares around the point estimate rather than from the variance of the replicates ("MSE" style) -- Preston's multistage rescaled bootstrap,

Version 1.9 of the survey package, now percolating through CRAN, adds a beta implementation of replication weights. These can either be created from a survey design (using BRR, JK1, or JKn schemes) or provided by the user. These have been tested on only a few examples so far: there seem to be relatively few published datasets with suitable analyses. As with earlier versions of the package, I

Version 1.9 of the survey package, now percolating through CRAN, adds a beta implementation of replication weights. These can either be created from a survey design (using BRR, JK1, or JKn schemes) or provided by the user. These have been tested on only a few examples so far: there seem to be relatively few published datasets with suitable analyses. As with earlier versions of the package, I

Version 3.3 of "survey" is percolating through CRAN. Since the last announcement on this list, version 2.9, the main additions are calibration estimators: linear, bounded linear, raking ratio, bounded raking ratio, logit. Other updates and bug fixes are described in http://faculty.washington.edu/tlumley/survey/NEWS -thomas Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor,

A guess (treat accordingly): Different BLAS versions are in use on the two different machines/versions. In one, near singularities are handled, and in the other they are not, percolating up to warnings at the R level. You can check this by seeing whether the estimated fit is the same on the 2 machines. If so, ignore the above. -- Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind

Hi there. I'm trying to upgrad from 4.7.7 to 4.9.4. I built from source, running on centos 7.6 on a Raspberry Pi. When testing on a secondary DC, my "samba-tool drs showrepl" errors out with: ERROR(<class 'samba.drs_utils.drsException'>): DRS connection to dc02.rvx.is > failed - drsException: DRS connection to dc02.rvx.is failed: (8, >

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:54:24 +0000 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:45:56 +0000 > Kristján Valur Jónsson <kristjan at rvx.is> wrote: > > > Any thoughts? Have code, will debug. The error itself is > > meaningless to me and I am deeply and utterly unfamiliar with samba > > code, but if you have any thought or

so the DC with FSMO is not done first?     Van: Kristján Valur Jónsson [mailto:kristjan at rvx.is] Verzonden: vrijdag 28 december 2018 17:08 Aan: L.P.H. van Belle Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] replication failing for 4.9.4 dc01 is still running 4.7.7.  No need to restart it.  There is also still a DC03 running 4.7.7.  the only one I've upgraded is DC02.  resolv.conf on DC02 is configured with

I am helping a student with some logistic regression analyses and we are getting some strange inconsistencies regarding a warning about factor levels being dropped when running predict.glm(, newdata = ournewdata) on the logistic regression model object. We have checked multiple times that the factor levels have been defined similarly on both data sets (one used to estimate model and the newdata)