Gabor indicated that a line was corrupted. Here is what it should be:
Here is the line again:
first <- gsub("^\\s*(\\w+).*", "\\1", x) # get the first word
It as suppose to be '\\w+' and '\\1'
For some reason, my browser must have substituted the extreneous references.
On 7/23/06, Bob Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> I am hoping for some assistance with formatting a large text file which
> consists of a series of individual records. Each record includes specific
> labels/field names (a sample of 1 record (one of the longest ones) is
> below - at end of post. What I want to do is reformat the data, so that
> each individual record becomes a row (some cells will have a lot of text).
> For example, the column variables I want are (a) HD in one column
> (b) BY in one column (c) WC data in one column, (d) PD data in one
> column, (e) SC data in one column (f) PG data in one column & g) LP and
> TD
> text in one column - this column can contain quite a lot of text, e.g1900
> words. The other fields are unwanted
>
> If there were 150 individual records, when formatted this would be a 7
> column by 150 row dataset.
>
> I was advised to:
>
> 1. read in the file using readLines giving a character vector one element
> per input line.
> 2. convert that to lines of the form:
> id op text
> where each such line is a field and multiline fields have been collapsed
> into a single line of text. This step involves
> detailed processing and you could do it in a loop or you could try a
> vectorized approach. A vectorized approach
> will likely involve using
> 3. the lines created above could be converted to a data frame with three
> columns and
> 4. reshape used to create a "wide" data frame.
> 5. then write it out using write.csv.
>
> I have got as far as being able to read the text into R - I am unsure if
> the warning is a problem. I am however, not at all sure what I need to do
> next.
>
> Any assistance is much appreciated,
>
>
> Bob
>
> (A) syntax
>
> mht <- scan(what="c:\\cm-mht1.txt").
> readLines("c:\\cm-mht1.txt",n = -1)
>
> [8376] "(c) 2006 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as
> Factiva). All "
> [8377] "rights reserved.
> "
> Warning message:
> incomplete final line found by readLines on 'c:\cm-mht1.txt'
>
> (B) sample data
>
> HD Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
> rampage in the US in 1969?
> BY By Deborah Cassrels.
> WC 1834 words
> PD 23 June 2001
> SN Courier Mail
> SC COUMAI
> PG 30
> LA English
> CY (c) 2001 Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd
>
> LP Was Charles Manson temporarily insane when he led a wild killing
> rampage in the US in 1969? Clearly he was mad and bad. But would
> Queensland have placed him before its Mental Health Tribunal, found
> him of
> unsound mind at the time of his crimes, institutionalised him and
> "treated" his illness? WHY is Queensland the only jurisdiction in
> the
> Commonwealth with a Mental Health Tribunal which establishes if an
> accused
> is fit to face trial or of unsound mind at the time of an alleged
> offence?
> Why is mental incompetence not determined in an adversarial court by
> a
> jury? Under the Mental Health Act 1974, the tribunal, a statutory
> body
> operating since 1985, comprises three-yearly appointments of a
> Supreme
> Court judge and two assisting psychiatrists, whose advice does not
> have to
> be accepted. The judge alone constitutes the tribunal, an
> inquisitorial
> process conducted in the Supreme Court in Brisbane.
>
> TD Victims or family are not notified of hearings or allowed to
> submit
> victim impact statements. They are prohibited from talking to the
> media
> until 28 days after the decision. And when patients return to the
> community there is no requirement for neighbours or victims to be
> notified. Is this legislation enlightened or are we just suckers,
> falling
> for time and money-saving strategies? The tribunal has earned a
> reputation
> as progressive, humane and economical among some judges who have
> presided
> over it. The inaugural chair, former Supreme Court judge Angelo
> Vasta QC,
> thinks the tribunal system is "enlightened" and "it saves an
> enormous
> amount of expenditure". He points to the humane side of treating the
> ill
> in a secure hospital rather than punishing them for offences but is
> uncomfortable with borderline cases. "Whether people are mad or bad
> ought
> to be established by a very thorough investigation.
> The associated Patient Review Tribunals (of which there are five)
> consist
> of three to six members, including the chair who is a legal officer,
> a
> medical practitioner and a mental health professional. A
> psychiatrist is
> not required. The other three have no specific qualifications and
> can
> include former patients. The tribunals operate in closed hearings
> and
> patients of unsound mind or unfit for trial are reviewed every 12
> months.
> Leave is granted either by the Mental Health Tribunal or the Patient
> Review Tribunal, which determine when a restricted patient is
> discharged
> into the community. Says the Director of Mental Health, Dr Peggy
> Brown:
> "In the case of serious offences you can be assured the period of
> monitoring is quite lengthy." Under the Mental Health Act 2000 to be
> implemented late this year, the tribunal will be replaced by a
> Mental
> Health Court and the Patient Review Tribunal by the Mental Health
> Review
> Tribunal. Queensland Health Minister Wendy Edmond says the name
> change
> reflects transparency, with proceedings under oath and
> cross-examination
> of witnesses. The legislation represents "real change to the rights
> of
> victims of crime". But there is still an embargo on publishing
> decisions
> in the media.
> Dr Brown says when patients are granted leave, victims or families
> can
> apply to be notified but decisions will be made on individual cases.
> "The
> (new) tribunal has to establish that there are reasonable grounds
> for the
> notification order to be made ... and it's also an appealable
> decision,"
> returning to the Mental Health Court.
> Brown says there are efficiencies in the new legislation but "it's
> not
> about saving money". The main advantages were that victims could
> make
> submissions to both bodies. Concerns still might not be addressed
> but
> reasons were expected to be provided. The court's composition and
> sole
> power of the judge will be retained. Victims or relatives can be
> notified
> of hearings and decisions about the patient. If not, reasons must be
> provided. The Patient Review Tribunals will be replaced by one
> tribunal
> with hearings still closed. It will comprise up to five members
> including
> a president (a lawyer of at least seven years' standing),
> psychiatrist or
> medical practitioner and community members and it will be chaired by
> a
> legal officer. Leave will be approved by the corresponding previous
> bodies. Chief Justice Paul de Jersey who presided over the 1995 case
> of
> Ross Farrah, a paranoid schizophrenic, who after murdering his
> girlfriend,
> Christine Nash, was allowed out of the John Oxley Centre to play
> sport and
> see movies, says the proposed legislative changes to the Mental
> Health Act
> appear to be "refinements". Two weeks ago, Nash's teenage son Wade
> committed suicide after suffering years of torment following his
> mother's
> murder. In May 1996, a letter was sent to the tribunal by now former
> director of secure care services at John Oxley Dr Peter Fama. It
> said:
> "Should Ross be committed to the Tribunal for trial on a charge of
> manslaughter or murder, I have to report that he is now fit to be
> placed
> in corrective custody ... There is no clinical need for further
> detention
> of Ross in hospital." De Jersey has been involved in the process of
> amendments in the new Act and believes the "adjustments" are
> satisfactory:
> "It's probably a question of how they're implemented. I thought the
> changes were more concerned with image than effecting substantial
> change
> to the system, calling it a court rather than a tribunal. There is
> some
> attempt to enhance the openness of the procedures such as the advice
> given
> by the existing psychiatrists being revealed in open court to the
> judge
> but they're aspects of streamlining rather than substantive change."
> He
> says many people are irked by a perceived disproportion between the
> treatment of mentally ill offenders and their victims. "As a
> community we
> need much more positively to address the situation of victims." De
> Jersey
> points to the James Bulger murder in the UK eight years ago when two
> 10-year-old boys abducted and battered James, two, to death. The
> killers
> are expected to be freed soon. Says de Jersey: "Whatever one thinks
> of
> future plans for the young offenders it is extraordinary, if
> reportedly
> correct, that so little help has been given to the bereft mother of
> the
> murdered toddler. "Similarly, here, it is generally indefensible
> where
> victims or the families of victims are not informed of details of
> the
> likely release of their offenders, and even before that where they
> are not
> given a proper explanation as to the process and counselling to help
> them
> comprehend that process and as well the consequences of the crime.
> We are
> as a community moving towards a greater focus on the position of
> victims
> but a lot more needs to be done. "The anguish of victims and the
> families
> of victims that insane offenders appear to escape punishment is
> understandable. The issue is whether the community is prepared to
> accept
> that insane offenders primarily need treatment." The Mental Health
> Tribunal worked on two assumptions, that offenders of unsound mind
> should,
> in the interests of the community, be treated rather than punished,
> and
> that a determination whether an offender was of unsound mind could
> responsibly be made by a Supreme Court judge with expert psychiatric
> assistance. "I have wondered whether with the ultimately serious
> crimes
> such as murder the community may not reasonably demand that in the
> interests of reassurance that the determination be made by a jury."
> He
> believes the community's longer term interests would best be served
> by
> medically treating insane offenders in a hospital rather than a
> prison,
> where if rehabilitated, they could contribute to the community. "I
> accept,
> however, that in many cases there will be serious residual concern,
> for
> example, can the offender be trusted, if left unsupervised, to
> continue to
> take the relevant medication?"
> De Jersey admits problems have arisen when offenders, granted leave,
> stopped taking medication but says if they can be relied upon to
> maintain
> stability through medication it would be inhumane to keep them
> locked up.
> Continued medical monitoring was necessary. If conditions were
> breached
> the person should be returned to restricted custody at the
> psychiatric
> hospital. While the most vulnerable in society deserve compassion it
> does
> not surprise there is public concern about lack of proper scrutiny,
> the
> capacity to re-offend and misuse of the legal process by using
> insanity as
> a defence. IN the general quest to improve treatment provisions for
> patients the 2000 Act says: "The new legislation provides for
> involuntary
> treatment in the community as an alternative to being an in-patient
> in a
> mental health service which reflects contemporary clinical practice
> and
> the principle of reform that involuntary treatment must be in the
> least
> restrictive form."
> Perhaps the overwhelming feeling is patients' rights have priority
> over
> victims' rights. Ted Flack, spokesman for the Queensland Homicide
> Victims
> Support Group says the new Act provides a better environment for
> victims'
> participation, but there are serious flaws. The rights of homicide
> victims
> were not guaranteed and this caused an inordinate amount of
> distress.
> "There's still considerable discretion in the hands of the Mental
> Health
> Court and the Mental Health Review Tribunal as to whether they would
> admit
> any evidence from the victims. The new Act is framed in such a way
> as to
> provide guaranteed rights to the person who's suffering from a
> mental
> illness and those rights come appropriately from the international
> conventions, but there are similar international conventions for
> victims
> and they are being completely ignored in the Act." Flack says the
> primary
> purpose of the Mental Health Tribunal is to save money and to
> safeguard
> the rights of the mentally disabled person. He believes the
> criminally
> insane can be catered for properly in jail. "The imprecise science
> of
> psychiatry is not an appropriate set of guidelines for the release
> into
> the community of dangerous killers," he says.
>
> NS
> GCAT : Political/General News | GCRIM : Crime/Courts | GHEA : Health
> |
> GHOME : Law Enforcement
>
> RE
> AUSNZ : Australia and New Zealand | AUSTR : Australia
>
> AN
> Document coumai0020010710dx6n005vl
>
> ______________________________________________
> [email protected] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
--
Jim Holtman
Cincinnati, OH
+1 513 646 9390
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
