Alright, I feel stupid now. That was the problem. For glm you can use both
successes and failures, while with the negative binomial it is simply a
count. That is why I was getting the subscript too long message. I
understand generalized linear models, but I haven't worked with negative
binomial
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 01:24 +, David Winsemius wrote:
> "Wade Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > Thanks for the recommendations, insights. I tried using glm.nb, but
> > it didn't seem to like my data. I received the message (subscript)
> > logical subscript t
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Wade Wall wrote:
> That is exactly how I am writing it. Glm works fine, but as I stated the
> residual deviance is much greater (10x) than the degrees of freedom. I want
> to take a look at using the negative binomial distribution, but I can't get
> glm.nb to work. I get the
At 12:54 03/04/2008, Wade Wall wrote:
>That is exactly how I am writing it. Glm works fine, but as I
>stated the residual deviance is much greater (10x) than the degrees
>of freedom. I want to take a look at using the negative binomial
>distribution, but I can't get glm.nb to work. I get the m
That is exactly how I am writing it. Glm works fine, but as I stated the
residual deviance is much greater (10x) than the degrees of freedom. I want
to take a look at using the negative binomial distribution, but I can't get
glm.nb to work. I get the message Error: (subscript) logical subscript t
At 17:03 02/04/2008, Wade Wall wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I have count data (number of flowering individuals plus total number of
>individuals) across 24 sites and 3 treatments (time since last burn).
>Following recommendations in the R Book, I used a glm with the model y~
>burn, with y being two columns (
"Wade Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Thanks for the recommendations, insights. I tried using glm.nb, but
> it didn't seem to like my data. I received the message (subscript)
> logical subscript too long. I am using the same dataframe as my
> previous glm. Do you
Wade Wall gmail.com> writes:
>
> Thanks for the recommendations, insights. I tried using glm.nb, but it
> didn't seem to like my data. I received the message (subscript) logical
> subscript too long. I am using the same dataframe as my previous glm. Do
> you know if I need to put the data in
Thanks for the recommendations, insights. I tried using glm.nb, but it
didn't seem to like my data. I received the message (subscript) logical
subscript too long. I am using the same dataframe as my previous glm. Do
you know if I need to put the data in a different format?
Thanks,
Wade
On We
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Gavin Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 12:03 -0400, Wade Wall wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have count data (number of flowering individuals plus total number of
> > individuals) across 24 sites and 3 treatments (time since last burn).
> > Following recommendations in the
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 12:03 -0400, Wade Wall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have count data (number of flowering individuals plus total number of
> individuals) across 24 sites and 3 treatments (time since last burn).
> Following recommendations in the R Book, I used a glm with the model y~
> burn, with y
Hi all,
I have count data (number of flowering individuals plus total number of
individuals) across 24 sites and 3 treatments (time since last burn).
Following recommendations in the R Book, I used a glm with the model y~
burn, with y being two columns (flowering, not flowering) and burn the time
12 matches
Mail list logo
