On Mar 17, 2011, at 20:46 , Brett Presnell wrote:
John Maindonald john.maindon...@anu.edu.au writes:
One can easily test for the binary case and not give the statistic in
that case.
A general point is that if one gave no output that was not open to
abuse, there'd be nothing given at
Thanks for putting in the rstandard() change Peter. I'll keep my
fingers crossed that it doesn't break anything.
Meanwhile, I hope that you and all the core developers will take my
enormous appreciation for all that you do as implicit in any message
that I send. You have changed and continue
3052, Australia.
sm...@wehi.edu.au
http://www.wehi.edu.au
http://www.statsci.org/smyth
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:17:46 +0100
From: peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
To: Brett Presnell presn...@stat.ufl.edu
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals
On Mar 16, 2011, at 23:34 , John Maindonald wrote:
One can easily test for the binary case and not give the statistic in that
case.
Warning if expected cell counts 5 would be another possibility.
A general point is that if one gave no output that was not open to abuse,
there'd be
peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:45:01 +0100 writes:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 23:34 , John Maindonald wrote:
One can easily test for the binary case and not give the
statistic in that case.
Warning if expected cell counts 5 would be another
On Mar 17, 2011, at 16:14 , Martin Maechler wrote:
peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:45:01 +0100 writes:
Back to the original question:
The current rstandard() code reads
## FIXME ! -- make sure we are following the literature:
rstandard.glm -
Dear Peter and Martin,
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:08:18 +0100
peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 17, 2011, at 16:14 , Martin Maechler wrote:
peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:45:01 +0100 writes:
Back to the original question:
The current
-project.org wrote:
From: Brett Presnell presn...@stat.ufl.edu
Date: 15 March 2011 2:40:29 PM AEDT
To: peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals
Thanks Peter. I have just a couple of minor comments, and another
possible
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Mar 16, 2011, at 23:29 , Gordon K Smyth wrote:
Hi Peter and others,
If it helps, I wrote a small function glm.scoretest() for the statmod
package on CRAN to compute score tests from glm fits. The score test
for adding a covariate, or any set
://www.wehi.edu.au
http://www.statsci.org/smyth
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:17:46 +0100
From: peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
To: Brett Presnell presn...@stat.ufl.edu
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals
On Mar 15, 2011, at 04:40 , Brett Presnell wrote:
Background: I'm
...@stat.ufl.edu
Date: 15 March 2011 2:40:29 PM AEDT
To: peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals
Thanks Peter. I have just a couple of minor comments, and another
possible feature request, although it's one that I don't think
To: peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals
Thanks Peter. I have just a couple of minor comments, and another
possible feature request, although it's one that I don't think will be
implemented.
peter dalgaard pda
On 15/03/11 13:17 PM, peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 15, 2011, at 04:40 , Brett Presnell wrote:
Background: I'm currently teaching an undergrad/grad-service course from
Agresti's Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (2nd edn) and
deviance residuals are not used in
PM AEDT
To: peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals
Thanks Peter. I have just a couple of minor comments, and another
possible feature request, although it's one that I don't think will be
implemented.
peter dalgaard
On Mar 15, 2011, at 14:22 , Jari Oksanen wrote:
On 15/03/11 13:17 PM, peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 15, 2011, at 04:40 , Brett Presnell wrote:
Background: I'm currently teaching an undergrad/grad-service course from
Agresti's Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis
Is there any reason that rstandard.glm doesn't have a pearson option?
And if not, can it be added?
Background: I'm currently teaching an undergrad/grad-service course from
Agresti's Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (2nd edn) and
deviance residuals are not used in the text. For now I'll
My apologies. I guess it would help if I tried the code more than once
before posting. That should have been:
rstandard.glm -
function(model,
infl=influence(model, do.coef=FALSE),
type=c(deviance, pearson), ...)
{
type - match.arg(type)
res - switch(type, pearson =
On Mar 14, 2011, at 22:25 , Brett Presnell wrote:
Is there any reason that rstandard.glm doesn't have a pearson option?
And if not, can it be added?
Probably... I have been wondering about that too. I'm even puzzled why it isn't
the default. Deviance residuals don't have quite the
Thanks Peter. I have just a couple of minor comments, and another
possible feature request, although it's one that I don't think will be
implemented.
peter dalgaard pda...@gmail.com writes:
On Mar 14, 2011, at 22:25 , Brett Presnell wrote:
Is there any reason that rstandard.glm doesn't
19 matches
Mail list logo
