similar to: R-beta: R0.62.3 problems

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: 1485 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/19980904/6c03ac2b/attachment.pl

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 think your idea to remove the warnings is excellent, and a good compromise. Characters already work fine in modeling functions except for the silly warning. It is interesting how often the defaults for a program reflect the data sets in use at the time the defaults were chosen. There are some such in my own survival package whose proper value is no longer as "obvious" as it was

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

Hi, I am trying to fit a logistic regression using glm, but my explanatory variables are of mixed type: some are numeric, some are ordinal, some are categorical, say If x1 is numeric, x2 is ordinal, x3 is categorical, is the following formula OK? *model <- glm(y~x1+x2+x3, family=binomial(link="logit"), na.action=na.pass)* * * *Thanks,* * * *-Jack* [[alternative HTML version

Kia ora list members: I'm having a little difficulty getting the correct standard errors from a glm.object (R 1.9.0 under Windows XP 5.1). predict() will gives standard errors of the predicted values, but I am wanting the standard errors of the mean. To clarify: Assume I have a 4x3x2 factorial with 2 complete replications (i.e. 48 observations, I've appended a dummy set of data at the

Hi all Apologies for any cross posting. I have encountered a rather bizarre "problem" in Splus and R. I am using Age-Period-Cohort models to model cervical cancer and have run the same data on both R (v.1.4.1 & v1.6.2) and Splus (version 6.0). I used the same command line in both Splus and R: glm(cases~-1+as.factor(age)

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") >

Dear R-er, I try to get the standard error of fitted parameters for factors with a glm, even the reference one: a <- runif(100) b <- sample(x=c("0", "1", "2"), size=100, replace = TRUE) df <- data.frame(A=a, B=b, stringsAsFactors = FALSE) g <- glm(a ~ b, data=df) summary(g)$coefficients # I don't get SE for the reference factor, here 0:

Hi, I'm just learning about poison links for the glm function. One of the data sets I'm playing with has several of the variables as factors (i.e. month, group, etc.) When I call the glm function with a formula that has a factor variable, R automatically converts the variable to a series of variables with unique names and binary values. For example, with this pseudo data: y

This is really a statistical issue. What do you think the Intercept term represents? See ?contrasts. Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip ) On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Marc Girondot via R-help < r-help at

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

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") >

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?m fitting GLM?s and I can?t interprete the coefficients when I run a model with interaction terms. When I run the simpliest model there is no problem: Model1<-glm (Fishes ~ Year + I(Year^2) + Kind.Geographic + Kind.Fishers + Zone.2 + Hours + Fishers + Month, family = poisson(log)) # Fishes, Year, Hours, and Fishers are numeric, Kind.Geographic, Kind.Fishers, Zone.2 and

Hi! I would like to suggest to make it possible, in one way or another, to get meaningful contrast names when using contr.sum(). Currently, when using contr.treatment(), one gets factor levels as contrast names; but when using contr.sum(), contrasts are merely numbered, which is not practical and can lead to mistakes (see code at the end of this message). This issue was discussed quickly in 2005

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

Dear R-help I have two separate experiments, one a repeated-measures design, the other a split-plot. In a standard ANOVA I have usually undertaken a multiple-comparison test on a significant factor with e.g TukeyHSD, but as I understand it such a test is inappropriate for repeated measures or split-plot designs. Is it therefore sensible to use Helmert contrasts for either of these designs?

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