Hi Paul,
here's a lm model to illustrate this:
summary(lm(y~x.1+x.2))
Call:
lm(formula = y ~ x.1 + x.2)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3QMax
-0.0561359 -0.0054020 0.0004553 0.0056516 0.0515817
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
[Oops! Written 6 hours ago, the following was accidentally not sent.]
Celso == Celso Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Wed, 5 Jul 2006 04:09:17 -0300 writes:
Celso When I run rlm to obtain robust standard errors, my output does not
include
Celso p-values. Is there any reason p-values
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Tarca, Adi wrote:
Hi all,
I have a dataset in which the output Y is observed on two groups of
patients (treatment factor T with 2 levels).
Every subject in each group is observed three times (not time points but
just technical replication).
I am interested in
2006/4/10, Tarca, Adi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
I have a dataset in which the output Y is observed on two groups of
patients (treatment factor T with 2 levels).
Every subject in each group is observed three times (not time points but
just technical replication).
I am interested in
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Renaud Lancelot wrote:
2006/4/10, Tarca, Adi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
I have a dataset in which the output Y is observed on two groups of
patients (treatment factor T with 2 levels).
Every subject in each group is observed three times (not time points but
just
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Thomas Lumley wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Renaud Lancelot wrote:
2006/4/10, Tarca, Adi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
I have a dataset in which the output Y is observed on two groups of
patients (treatment factor T with 2 levels).
Every subject in each group is observed
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Thomas Lumley wrote:
He has a linear model with the same number of observations for each person
Not so: some have 3 and some have 2, and the two levels of T are not quite
balanced (29/28).
and no covariates that vary
you could use anova(fit1, fit2), where fit1 represent a model only
with intercept; however, you have to be a little bit more careful in
this setting since gls() has as default method the REML. Thus you
should specify, e.g.,
fit1 - gls(y ~ 1, correlation = ..., method = ML)
fit2 - gls(y ~ ...,
Ladelund, Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all.
Belove is the example from the cluster-help page wtih the output.
I simply cannot figure out how to relate the estimate and robust Std. Err to
the p-value. I am aware this a marginal model applying the sandwich
estimator using (here I
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Peter Ho wrote:
HI R-users,
I am trying to repeat an example from Rayner and Best A contingency
table approach to nonparametric testing (Chapter 7, Ice cream example).
In their book they calculate Durbin's statistic, D1, a dispersion
statistics, D2, and a residual.
Spencer,
Here is an example from rayner and best 2001 and the script sent by
Felipe. This can be done as follows using the function durbin.grupos()
in the attached file
###Ice cream example from Rayner and Best 2001 . Chapter 7
judge - rep(c(1:7),rep(3,7))
variety -
pperm seems reasonable, though I have not looked at the details.
We should be careful about terminology, however. So-called exact
p-values are generally p-values computed assuming a distribution over a
finite set of possible outcomes assuming some constraints to make the
Spencer,
Thank you for referring me to your other email on Exact goodness-of-fit
test. However, I'm not entirely sure if what you mentioned is the same
for my case. I'm not a statistician and it would help me if you could
explain what you meant in a little more detail. Perhaps I need to
Hi, Peter:
Please see my reply of a few minutes ago subject: exact
goodness-of-fit test. I don't know Rayner and Best, but the same
method, I think, should apply. spencer graves
Peter Ho wrote:
HI R-users,
I am trying to repeat an example from Rayner and Best A contingency
Not really an R question.
Most classifiers will produce predicted probabilities, and you can check
their accuracy. There are lots of details in my PRNN book, and some
examples in MASS4.
I suggest you adjust your training and test sets to be more nearly equal,
or use cross-validation.
I
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 20:36 -0500, John Sorkin wrote:
R 2.0.1
Linux
I am using rlm() to fit a model, e.g. fit1-rlm(y~x). My model is more
complex than the one shown.
When I enter summary(fit1)
I get estimates for the model's coefficients along with their SEs, and
t values, but no p
Hmm, this is rather about reading the (Hartigan)^2 paper ...
Kylie == Kylie Lange [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:17:34 +0930 writes:
Kylie Hi all,
Kylie I am using Hartigan Hartigan's [1] dip test of
Kylie unimodality via the diptest package in R. The
Kylie
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:49:26 +1000
John Maindonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is, of course, not strictly about R. But if there should be
a decision to pursue such matters on this list, then we'd need
another list to which such discussion might be diverted.
I've pulled Frank's
Frank -
Thanks for your reply, on which I really have no comment.
There are contexts where a Bayesian approach necessary,
natural and easy to handle, and can be used to broaden
the inferential vision of students. Examples from HIV
testing and mammography screening in
Gigerenzer's book, sold in
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, John Maindonald wrote:
This is, of course, not strictly about R. But if there should be
a decision to pursue such matters on this list, then we'd need
another list to which such discussion might be diverted.
Ted Harding started such a list (stats-discuss) quite some
On 29-Apr-04 Thomas Lumley wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, John Maindonald wrote:
This is, of course, not strictly about R. But if there should be
a decision to pursue such matters on this list, then we'd need
another list to which such discussion might be diverted.
Ted Harding started such
29, 2004 10:39 AM
To: Thomas Lumley
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John Maindonald
Subject: Re:[R] p-values
On 29-Apr-04 Thomas Lumley wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, John Maindonald wrote:
This is, of course, not strictly about R. But if there should be
a decision to pursue such matters on this list
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:25:22 +0100 (BST)
(Ted Harding) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27-Apr-04 Greg Tarpinian wrote:
I apologize if this question is not completely
appropriate for this list.
Never mind! (I'm only hoping that my response is ... )
[...]
This week I have been reading
This is, of course, not strictly about R. But if there should be
a decision to pursue such matters on this list, then we'd need
another list to which such discussion might be diverted.
I've pulled Frank's Regression Modeling Stratregies down
from my shelf and looked to see what he says about
24 matches
Mail list logo
