I realise that in the case of loglin the parameters are clacluated post festum from the cell frequencies, however other programmes that use Newton-Raphson as opposed to IPF work the other way round, right? In which case one would expect the output of parameters to be limited to the particular contrast used. But since loglin uses IPF I would have thought the choice of style of parameter to be output could be made... Anyway, this is the line that interests me:
> lm( as.vector( loglin(...,fit=TRUE)$fit ) ~ < your favored contrasts > ) only I'm not profficient in R to figure out the last term :( How would I go about this then if my prefered contrasti is setting the first categories as reference cats? I literaly just need the equivalent of loglin(matrix(c(1,2,3,4), nrow=2), list(c(1,2)), param=TRUE) which would give me parameters under indicator contrast. glm... well, I'd have to work on it Regarding the more general points ad 2) I would have thought that direct inspection of cell frequencies is precisely the wrong/misleading thing to do - the highest order coefficients can be inspected directly in order to see the interaction without the (lower) marginal effects, or alternatively the table can be standardized to uniform margins for the same sort of inspection. ad 3) and yes, I figured as much! I can't see how lower order terms can be interpreted at all if higher order interactions exist? I've seen it done, e.g I've seen it claimed that in a standardized table the lower order terms are all equal to zero, which is of course not true? Thanks! Maja -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/indicator-or-deviation-contrasts-in-log-linear-modelling-tp22090104p22093070.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org 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.
