similar to: R-beta: formula() and model formulae

Hello R Developers, This is my first foray into using c-code with R, so please forgive my foolishness. I had a look at the archives and did not find anything on this, so hopefully I am not doubling up. I have tried to use R cmd to create an object file from the odesolve dynload example. I am using windows and have just installed rtools, and have the latest version of stable R (2..7.2). This is

Hi, I found that using different contrasts (e.g. contr.helmert vs. contr.treatment) will generate different fitted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression using multinom(); while the fitted probabilities from binary logistic regression seem to be the same. Why is that? and for multinomial logisitc regression, what contrast should be used? I guess it's helmert? here is an example

I'm wondering which textbook discussed the various contrast matrices mentioned in the help page of 'contr.helmert'. Could somebody let me know? BTW, in R version 2.9.1, there is a typo on the help page of 'contr.helmert' ('cont.helmert' should be 'contr.helmert').

Dear R users, When fitting a lme() object (from the nlme library), is it possible to test interactions *before* main effects? As I understand, R conventionally re-orders all terms such that highest-order interactions come last - but I??d like to know if it??s possible (and sensible) to change this ordering of terms. I??ve tried the terms() command (from aov) but I don??t know if something

On 6/23/05, RenE J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I was just having a look at the aov function source code, and see that when the model used does not have an Error term, Helmert contrasts are imposed: > > if (is.null(indError)) { > ... > } > else { > opcons <- options("contrasts") >

Hi, perhaps this is a stupid question, but i need some help about Helmert contrasts in the Cox model. I have a survival data frame with an unordered factor `group' with levels 0 ... 5. Calculating the Cox model with Helmert contrasts, i expected that the first coefficient would be the same as if i had used treatment contrasts, but this is not true. I this a error in reasoning, or is it

Hi Folks, I've encountered something I hadn't been consciously aware of previously, and I'm wondering what the explanation might be. In (on another list) using R to demonstrate the difference between different contrasts in 'lm' I set up an example where Y is sampled from three different normal distributions according to the levels ("A","B","C")

Hi all, I have dataset with 2 independent variable, one (x1) is continuous, the other (x2) is a categorical variable with 2 levels. The dependent variable (y) is continuous. When I run linear regression y~x1*x2, I found that the p value for the continuous independent variable x1 changes when different contrasts was used (helmert vs. treatment), while the p values for the categorical x2 and

I have been trying to make use of the odesolve library on my university's Linux grid - currently R version 2.0.1 is installed and the system runs 64-bit Scientific Linux based on Redhat. I cannot seem to get lsoda working when I define the model as a shared C library. For example, the following snippet uses the mymod.c example bundled with the package: ### START rm(list=ls())

This is my first post to this list so I suppose a quick intro is in order. I've been using SPLUS 2000 and R1.6.2 for just a couple of days, and love S already. I'm reading MASS and also John Fox's book - both have been very useful. My background in stat software was mainly SPSS (which I've never much liked - thanks heavens I've found S!), and Perl is my tool of choice for

Is there any logical reason why glm prints out the labels of factor levels after variable names when baseline contrasts (contr.treatment) are used but the codes for the levels when mean contrasts (contr.sum) are used? Jim -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info",

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 2378 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/19980901/d2289901/attachment.pl

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 2378 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/19980901/d2289901/attachment.pl

Dear R-helpers, I try to perform glm's with negative binomial distributed data. So I use the MASS library and the commands: model_1 = glm.nb(response ~ y1 + y2 + ...+ yi, data = data.frame) and predict(model_1, newdata = data.frame) So far, I think everything should be ok. But when I want to perform a glm with a subset of the data, I run into an error message as soon as I want to predict

I am using RW 1.2.3. on an IBM PC 300GL. Using the data bp.dat which accompanies Helen Brown and Robin Prescott 1999 Applied Mixed Models in Medicine. Statistics in Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA which is also found at www.med.ed.ac.uk/phs/mixed. The data file was opened and initialized with > dat <- read.table("bp.dat") >

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 09:52:12PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > The automatic generation of the Python ctypes interfaces using the Clang > Python bindings is pretty friggin cool! A nice side effect is that everything is added to the interface. So it is easy to add a small proxy over the lib that shows which parts of the llvm-c API that is exercised by the tests. (have that in my bindings)

Dear List, I am using the output of a ML estimation on a random effects model with first-order autocorrelation to make a further conditional test. My model is much like this (which reproduces the method on the famous Grunfeld data, for the econometricians out there it is Table 5.2 in Baltagi): library(Ecdat) library(nlme) data(Grunfeld)

I've been working on a wrapper for LLVM's C++ API to use from Objective-C for a scripting language I'm working on. I currently have an issue with passing arguments to a function that takes a struct argument. typedef struct _test_struct { int x; int y; } test_struct; id testLLVMStructFuncCall(test_struct x) { NSLog(@"%d %d",x.x,x.y); return N(x.x + x.y); }

Hi all, I have been trying to calculate Type III SS in R for an unbalanced two-way anova. However, the Type III SS are lower for the first factor compared to type I but higher for the second factor (see below). I have the impression that Type III are always lower than Type I - is that right? And a clarification about how to fit Type III SS. Fitting model<-aov(y~a*b) in the base package and

I'm running a series of simple bivariate linear regressions on grouped data. I want to test the slopes to see if they are parallel. I normally use analysis of covariance to do so, looking at interaction between the covariate and the factor to make this determination. VR3 pp.149 - 154 has a very nice example of an ANOCOVA, ending with a discussion of this very operation. My question has