On Mar 21, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Ben Bolker wrote:
Dieter Menne menne-biomed.de> writes:
Ben Bolker wrote:
3. zero-inflated data may not be particularly well-represented
by a Gamma distribution: if you actually have a significant number
of exactly-zero values, you may want to analyze your dat
On Mar 21, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Ben Bolker wrote:
Dieter Menne menne-biomed.de> writes:
Ben Bolker wrote:
3. zero-inflated data may not be particularly well-represented
by a Gamma distribution: if you actually have a significant number
of exactly-zero values, you may want to analyze your dat
Dieter Menne menne-biomed.de> writes:
> Ben Bolker wrote:
> > 3. zero-inflated data may not be particularly well-represented
> > by a Gamma distribution: if you actually have a significant number
> > of exactly-zero values, you may want to analyze your data in two
> > stages, first as a presen
Ben Bolker wrote:
>
>
> 3. zero-inflated data may not be particularly well-represented
> by a Gamma distribution: if you actually have a significant number
> of exactly-zero values, you may want to analyze your data in two
> stages, first as a presence-absence problem and then as a conditional
Matthew Giovanni gmail.com> writes:
>
> Dear R and lme4 users-
>
> I am trying to fit a mixed-effects model, with the glmer function in
> lme4, to right-skewed, zero-inflated, non-normal data representing
> understory grass and forb biomass (continuous) as a function of tree
> density (indicate
Dear R and lme4 users-
I am trying to fit a mixed-effects model, with the glmer function in
lme4, to right-skewed, zero-inflated, non-normal data representing
understory grass and forb biomass (continuous) as a function of tree
density (indicated by leaf-area). Thus, I have tried to specify a
Gam
6 matches
Mail list logo
