similar to: dim(x) error message in lme (nlme package)

I have taken the liberty of including the R-help mailing list on this reply as that is the appropriate place to discuss lmer results. On 4/5/06, Andreas Svensson <andreas.svensson at bio.ntnu.no> wrote: > Hello again > I have now recieved some helpful hints in this matter and will summarize them but first let me reiterate the problem: > > I had two treatments: 2 types of food

Dear R users, I am using lme and nlme to account for spatially correlated errors as random effects. My basic question is about being able to correct F, p, R2 and parameters of models that do not take into account the nature of such errors using gls, glm or nlm and replace them for new F, p, R2 and parameters using lme and nlme as random effects. I am studying distribution patterns of 50 tree

Dear R-helpers, I have a time series analysis problem in R: I want to analyse the output of my simulation model which is proportional cover of shrubs in a savanna plot for each of 500 successive years. I have run the model (which includes stochasticity, especially in the initial conditions) 17 times generating 17 time series of shrub cover. I am interested in a possible periodicity of shrub

Dear R-gurus, I have an interpretation problem regarding lme models. I am currently working on dog locomotion, particularly on some variation factors. I try to figure out which limb out of 2 generated more dispersed data. I record a value called Peak, around 20 times for each limb with a record. I repeat the records during a single day, and on several days. I tried to build two models, one

Hello, Any advice or pointers for implementing Sobel's test for mediation in 2-level model setting? For fitting the hierarchical models, I am using "lme4" but could also revert to "nlme" since it is a relatively simple varying intercept model and they yield identical estimates. I apologize for this is an R question with an embedded statistical question. I noticed that a

Hi All, I would like to ask a question on fixed and random effecti in lme. I am fiddlying around Mick Crawley dataset "rats" : http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/mjcraw/statcomp/data/ The advantage is that most work is already done in Crawley's book (page 361 onwards) so I can check what I am doing. I am tryg to reproduce the nested analysis on page 368:

Dear R users, i'm using a custom function to fit ancova models to a dataset. The data are divided into 12 groups, with one dependent variable and one covariate. When plotting the data, i'd like to add separate regression lines for each group (so, 12 lines, each with their respective individual slopes). My 'model1' uses the group*covariate interaction term, and so the coefficients

Dear R users, Thanks in advance. I am Deb, Statistician at NSW Department of Commerce, Sydney. I am using R 2.9.1 on Windows XP. This has reference to the package “MCMCpack”. My objective is to select a better model using various alternatives. I have provided here an example code from MCMCpack.pdf. The matrix of Bayes Factors is: model1 model2 model3 model1 1.000 14.08

library(survival) library(boot) data=NULL lambda=NULL result=NULL pat=rep(1:102,each=1) trt=rep(c(1,0),51) status=rep(1,102) site=rep(1:51, each=2) nr.datasets=100 seed=2006 beta=log(1/2) for (i in 1:51) { lambda[i]=1+((3-1)/50)*(i-1)} lambda1=rep(lambda, each=2) dummy=rep(c(exp(beta),1),51) elf=lambda1*dummy r=70 #the number of bootstrap replicates

Hello R-Help, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issues (there are 2): 1) Possible bug when using lmtest::encomptest() with a linear model created using nlme::lmList() 2) Possible modification to lmtest::encomptest() to fix confusing fail when models provided are, in fact, nested. I have

Full_Name: Menelaos Stavrinides Version: 1.3. 1 OS: Windows 98 Submission from: (NULL) (193.129.76.90) When model simplification is used in glm (binomial errors) and anova is used two compare two competitive models one can use either an "F" or a "Chi" test. R always performs an F test (Although when test="Chi" the test is labeled as Chi, there isn't any

Hello everyone, Sorry if my question is not clear, my first language is not English, but Portuguese. I am building a model for my data, using non-binomial error. I am having a bit of a problem when updating the model to remove parameters that I no do no autocorrelate with other variables (I have used a autocorrelation function for this). So my first model looks like this:

Hi, I'm trying to compare models, one of which has all parameters fixed using offsets. The log-likelihoods seem reasonble in all cases except the model in which there are no free parameters (model3 in the toy example below). Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Jarrod x<-rnorm(100) y<-rnorm(100, 1+x) model1<-lm(y~x) logLik(model1) sum(dnorm(y, predict(model1),

Dear r-helpers, Spencer Graves and Manual Morales proposed the following methods to simulate p-values in lme4: ************preliminary************ require(lme4) require(MASS) summary(glm(y ~ lbase*trt + lage + V4, family = poisson, data = epil), cor = FALSE) epil2 <- epil[epil$period == 1, ] epil2["period"] <- rep(0, 59); epil2["y"] <- epil2["base"]

Hi everyone, I have recently experienced a strange behavior (strange from my knowledge) in rails. In my controllers ''new'' action, I am creating a few instance variables in the following manner : @controllerModel = ControllerModel.new @model1 = Model1.all @model2 = Model2.all in my ''new'' view, I am using the @controllerModel to create the form for new and I

I am using anova.lm to compare 3 linear models. Model 1 has 1 variable, model 2 has 2 variables and model 3 has 3 variables. All models are fitted to the same data set. anova.lm(model1,model2) gives me: Res.Df RSS Df Sum of Sq F Pr(>F) 1 135 245.38 2 134 184.36 1 61.022 44.354 6.467e-10 *** anova.lm(model1,model2,model3) gives

Hello, I want to understand how to tell if a model is significant. For example I have vectX1 and vectY1. I seek first what model is best suited for my vectors and then I want to know if my result is significant. I'am doing like this: model1 <- lm(vectY1 ~ vectX1, data= d), model2 <- nls(vectY1 ~ a*(1-exp(-vectX1/b)) + c, data= d, start = list(a=1, b=3, c=0)) aic1 <- AIC(model1)

Hello, I'm trying to estimate a Cox proportional hazard model with time-varying covariates using coxph. The parameter estimates are fine but there is something wrong with the survival curves I get with survfit (results are not plausible). Let me explain why I think something's wrong. To make sure I'm setting up my data correctly to estimate a model with time-varying covariates, I

Hello, I have a simple theorical question about regresion... Let's suppose I have this: Model 1: Y = B0 + B1*X1 + B2*X2 + B3*X3 and Model 2: Y = B0 + B2*X2 + B3*X3 I.E. Model1 = lm(Y~X1+X2+X3) Model2 = lm(Y~X2+X3) The Ajusted R-Square for Model1 is 0.9 and the Ajusted R-Square for Model2 is 0.99, among many other significant improvements. And I want to do the anova test to choose the best

Dear all, I am analysing growth data - response variable - using GAM and GAMM models, and 4 covariates: mean size, mean capture year, growth interval, having tumors vs. not The models work fine, and fit the data well, however when I try to compare models using AIC I cannot get an AIC value. This is the code for the gam model: