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 to
On Mar 17, 2011, at 20:46 , Brett Presnell wrote:
>
> John Maindonald 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 all!
>
> Thank
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 of
>> saturated model: Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes not.)
>>
>>>
>>> John Maindonald email: john.maindon...@anu.edu.au
>>> phone : +61 2 (6125)3473fax : +61 2(6125)5549
>>> Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Roo
Dear Peter and Martin,
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:08:18 +0100
peter dalgaard wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2011, at 16:14 , Martin Maechler wrote:
>
> >> peter dalgaard
> >>on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:45:01 +0100 writes:
> >>
> >
> >> Back to the original question:
> >
> >> The current rstandar
On Mar 17, 2011, at 16:14 , Martin Maechler wrote:
>> peter dalgaard
>>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 <- funct
> peter dalgaard
> 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
> poss
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
Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research,
> 1G Royal Parade, Parkville, Vic 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
>> To: Brett Presnell
>&
man Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
>> Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
>> http://www.maths.anu.edu.au/~johnm
>>
>> On 15/03/2011, at 10:00 PM, r-devel-requ...@r-project.org wrote:
>>
>>> From: Brett Presnell
>>> Date:
://www.wehi.edu.au
http://www.statsci.org/smyth
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:17:46 +0100
From: peter dalgaard
To: Brett Presnell
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 currently teaching an undergrad
On Mar 15, 2011, at 14:22 , Jari Oksanen wrote:
> On 15/03/11 13:17 PM, "peter dalgaard" 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 An
> On 15/03/2011, at 10:00 PM, r-devel-requ...@r-project.org wrote:
>
>> From: Brett Presnell
>> Date: 15 March 2011 2:40:29 PM AEDT
>> To: peter dalgaard
>> Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals
>>
>>
>>
On 15/03/11 13:17 PM, "peter dalgaard" 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 i
> Date: 15 March 2011 2:40:29 PM AEDT
> To: peter dalgaard
> 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
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 the text. For now I'll just provide
>>> the students wi
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 writes:
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 22:25 , Brett Presnell wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there any reason that rstandard.glm doesn't have a "pears
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 prop
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, pear
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
