similar to: AOV in MASS not the same??

Dear All, I'm not sure of the interpretation of interactions with contrasts. Can anyone help? I do an ANCOVA, dryweight is covariate, block and treatment are factors, c4 the response variable. model<-aov(log(c4+1)~dryweight+treatment+block+treatment:block) summary(model); Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) dryweight 1 3.947 3.947 6.6268 0.01076 *

Dear Madame, Dear Sir, I am able to obtain the coefficients from a 'summary' of 'lm', but NOT from a 'summary' of 'aov'. The following example shows my steps. ## Initialize rm(list = ls()) # remove (almost) everything in the working environment utils::data(npk, package="MASS") # get data model <- yield ~ block + N*P*K ## Using lm npk.lm <-

Lets say you had 4 servers and you wanted to setup replicate and distribute. What methoid would be better: server sdb1 xen0 brick0 xen1 mirror0 xen2 brick1 xen3 mirror1 replicate block0 - brick0 mirror0 replicate block1 - brick1 mirror1 distribute unify - block0 block1 or server sdb1 sdb2 xen0 brick0 mirror3 xen1 brick1 mirror0 xen2 brick2 mirror1 xen3 brick3 mirror2 replicate block0 -

Is there an easy way of converting an aov.summary into a matrix in which the rows are the factor names and the columns are Df, Sum Sq, Mean Sq, F value and Pr. For example, convert Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) block 5 343.29 68.66 4.4467 0.015939 * N 1 189.28 189.28 12.2587 0.004372 ** P 1 8.40 8.40 0.5441 0.474904 K

Dear all, I want to compute the average of the three blocks for each x-variable which is equal slide in the code below. How can I do that ? block x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 1 23 22 23 24 23 1 21 25 26 21 39 1 23 24 22 23 23 2 20 21 23 24 28 2 32 23 34 24 26 2 19

Hi, I am working on table suing R and Latex. I am writing .Rnw file first in which i m reading input file and storing into dataframe. After filtering certain values from this dataframe. I am planning to display it. I don't want to use xtable since i need to change column names. *Sample .Rnw file* @ <<echo=FALSE>>= cat("\begin{table}[ht]")

Dear listmembers, I would like to define a class with a slot that takes either an object of class aov or NULL. I have been reading "S4 Classes in 15 pages more or less" and "Lecture: S4 classes and methods" #First I tried with list and NULL setClass(listOrNULL") setIs("list", "listOrNULL") setIs("NULL", "listOrNULL") #doesn't

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7667 Summary: "devices" regression test fails on x86_64-apple-darwin10 Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: Other OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org

Hi, One problem with your example dataset is that you have 11 list elements with the last one having different dimensions.? I think it was based on `summarized`. Then, the second problem I encountered for testing is that the dataset you provided doesn't fulfill the criteria. lst1<- list(structure(list......) #output of dput ? lst2<- lst1[1:10] #deleted the last list element

Hi, I am trying to plot an interaction.plot with different color for each level of a factor. It has an erratic behavior. For example, it works for the first interaction.plot below, with the example from the ALDA book, but not with the other plots, from the NPK dataset: # from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/r/examples/alda/ch2.htm tolerance <-

Hi all, Perhaps this in an inappropriate post, but I've found a bug in proj I'd like to track down a bit further before making a formal bug report. The example below shows the problem, if you change the rownames proj fails. The problem seems to be that there is a mismatch in the rownames in the qr objects constructed by aov and the rownames that proj is expecting them to have.

This patch does two things. First we no longer explicitly read in the blocks we''re trying to readahead. For things like balance_level we may never actually use the blocks so this just adds uneeded latency, and balance_level and split_node will both read in the blocks they care about explicitly so if the blocks need to be waited on it will be done there. Secondly we no longer drop the

Hi, This might be a minor bug, or it could be that I'm just mis-using the tools (again). If you modify the example for model.tables to introduce an NA, N <- c(0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0) P <- c(1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0) K <- c(1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0) yield <-

I'm baffled. When I run make check after installing from source, I get a Error 2. From my understanding of how these things work, it would appear to be coming from this (as at the end of base-Ex.Rout.fail: > has.VR <- require(MASS, quietly = TRUE) Attaching package 'MASS': The following object(s) are masked from package:base : confint confint.lm nclass.FD nclass.scott

Dear statistitians / R users, I was told to analyse the effects of the four factors using lm or update for aov. The following is the result from lm. As you can see that in the last few lines enclosed coefficients. 1)Does this mean I can write a formula, like yield =0.26 + 0.03*H + 1.48*T + 0.04*L + 0.004*C 2) in the two levels design, is there any difference between I use (-1, 1) to

The following R commands were written: >help.search("factorial") >data(npk) >npk >coef(npk.aov) In the output of coef command, please explain me the interpretation of coefficients of block1 to block 6 in this 2^3 confounded factorial experiment. Thanks. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hello, I noticed that model.tables fails when applied to an aov() fit if called inside a function. The problem seems to occur when as.formula is used inside a function on a string containing "<formula> + Error( x / y )" The reason I tried to use as.formula is to generate dynamic calls to aov(). Here is a minimal example illustrating the problem: ## Example test <-

Hello all. I'm currently working with mixed models, and have noticed a curious difference between the nlme and lmer packages. While I realize that model selection with mixed models is a tricky issue, the two packages currently produce different AIC scores for the same model, but they systematically differ by 2. In looking at the logLik values for each method, I find that they

One of the changes some packages are noticing from the recent modifications to methods is warnings of "undefined classes" during installation when the package extends S3 classes or uses them as slots UNLESSS they have been declared in a setOldClass() call. The green book "strongly recommends" declaring S3 classs this way (pp 449-451). The warnings on undeclared classes

Hi Eli: >> semantics of the fork intrinsic... thinking about it a bit more, I think >> you're going to run into problems with trying to keep around a return block >> through optimizations: How about this? Make all control flow explicit (duh). declare i8 coro.suspend([...]) returns: 0 - resume 1 - cleanup anything else - suspend Now we can get