2:44 PM
An: Duncan Murdoch
Cc: r-help@r-project.org
Betreff: Re: [R] unexpected GAM result - at least for me!
Hi,
I've compared observed and predicted and they match 100%.
For 90% probability of occurrence:
table(can0,fitted(can3.gam)0.9)
FALSE TRUE
FALSE230
TRUE
,
Monica
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:30:01 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] unexpected GAM result - at least for me!
On 3/31/2008 9:01 AM, Monica Pisica wrote:
Thanks Duncan.
Yes i do have variation in the lidar metrics (be, ch
Hi
I am afraid i am not understanding something very fundamental and does not
matter how much i am looking into the book Generalized Additive Models of S.
Wood i still don't understand my result.
I am trying to model presence / absence (presence = 1, absence = 0) of a
species using
On 3/31/2008 8:34 AM, Monica Pisica wrote:
Hi
I am afraid i am not understanding something very fundamental and does
not matter how much i am looking into the book Generalized Additive Models
of S. Wood i still don't understand my result.
I am trying to model presence /
to predict presence / absence.
Do you think it is still a valid result?
Thanks again,
Monica Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:47:48 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: r-help@r-project.org Subject: Re: [R] unexpected GAM
result - at least for me! On 3/31/2008 8:34 AM, Monica Pisica
, 31 Mar 2008 08:47:48 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] unexpected GAM result - at least for me!
On 3/31/2008 8:34 AM, Monica Pisica wrote:
Hi
I am afraid i am not understanding something very
6 matches
Mail list logo
