meta user
network profile
| bio | website | biomath.ugent.be/biomath/… |
|---|---|---|
| location | Ghent, Belgium | |
| age | 36 | |
| visits | member for | 2 years, 9 months |
| seen | May 27 at 15:47 | |
| stats | profile views | 310 |
Statistician and R programmer at the faculty of Bio-Engineering, university of Ghent
Co-author of 'R for Dummies' (out in july 2012 )
contact : Joris - dot - Meys - at - Ugent - dot - be
|
Mar 19 |
comment |
Is normality testing 'essentially useless'? @maximus with the function qqnormin R |
|
Mar 12 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Feb 26 |
awarded | Enlightened |
|
Feb 26 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
Use coefficients of thin plate regression splines in a clustering method A very belated thank you! |
|
Dec 12 |
comment |
Comparison of before and after ordinal data across two groups I don't agree on the test on the median. We're talking an ordinal scale here, and all tests on "median" are actually tests on location shift, which require distributions with the same shape. In an ordinal context, this is a rather dangerous assumption. |
|
Nov 28 |
awarded | Guru |
|
Oct 8 |
comment |
Non negative lasso implementation in R Sorry for closing your question, but it is better asked and answered at www.crossvalidated.com I flagged the question for migration, so the mods will take care of it shortly. This said, please make your question clear and explain exactly what you want. The lasso expert in our research group couldn't possibly figure out what you were aiming at... |
|
Aug 31 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Aug 10 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Aug 1 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Jul 29 |
comment |
Meta analysis on studies with 0-frequency cells Common solutions are not always correct solutions. |
|
Jul 11 |
comment |
Expected value of small sample @Néstor reformulate as 'the probability that the 95% confidence interval contains the true value', which is, all assumptions taken into account and defining probability as the 'relative frequency of occurrence' or 'propensity', 0.95. Don't forget as well that probability is defined differently in frequentist and bayesian theories. BTW, I've read the whole discussion, but if I remember correctly it was you who brought the arguments given there to this discussion... |
|
Jul 10 |
comment |
Expected value of small sample @Néstor I've had this semantic discussion a hundred times over, mostly with bayesians. As long as you don't know the true value, you have a probability. Once you know it, the CI renders itself useless. As long as the winning numbers of the lottery aren't known, you can talk about your chance to win the lottery. Once you know the winning numbers, you either won or you didn't. So as long as you can't tell me for sure whether or not the true value is contained in my calculated CI, I can only talk about the probability that it's in that calculated CI. YMMV. |
|
Jul 10 |
revised |
Expected value of small sample added 170 characters in body |
|
Jul 10 |
comment |
Expected value of small sample @Néstor As in: Do this 10,000 times and 95% of the confidence intervals you construct, will contain the true expected value. And since you don't know which of these CI you have, you have a probability of 95% that your confidence interval contains the true value. Delete the expected, that's a typo. |
|
Jun 14 |
comment |
How to determine the effect size of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in R? Welcome to SO. I flagged your question for migration to www.crossvalidated.com , as your question is more statistical than anything else. In short : Wilcoxon RANK test works with ranks, so I'm not sure about which effect size you're talking. Obviously it doesn't give you a z value, as that one is linked to parametric testing, not to non-parametric tests like Wilcoxon. Wilcoxon has to be interpreted in terms of location shift. |
|
Jun 13 |
revised |
How do we create a confidence interval for the parameter of a permutation test? edited body |
|
Jun 13 |
comment |
How do we create a confidence interval for the parameter of a permutation test? @Kevin : Code was darn right. Read the code again: the x[6:11] refers to the argument x of the anonymous function within the apply. Confusing maybe, but your edit gave very wrong results. Please comment about what you think it should be before editing the code. Saves me a rollback. To avoid further confusion, I changed that x to i |
|
Jun 13 |
revised |
How do we create a confidence interval for the parameter of a permutation test? rolled back to a previous revision |
