|
|
Thanks for the terminological/methodological corrections, and also
for the ref to gnuplot.
Posted:
Dec 14, 2012 8:46 AM
|
|
Thanks as always for your patience with my gobbledy-gook.
I. Terminological matters:
A. Yes ? I meant the term ueSlope to denote the ?coefficient of u*e?
in c on (e,u,u*e,u^2).
B. What I meant by this particular piece of gobbledy-gook:
?From each computation of ueSlope on (ubar, ebar) we have a pair of
slopes with a pair of associated probabilities ...?
was:
?From each execution of ueSlope on (ubar, ebar), we obtain a pair of
coefficients for the ubar,ebar predictors and a pair of probabilities
associated with these coefficients?.
Further, I assumed that each of these probabilities IS generated by
the protocol you gave in your post of 12/7 at 5:27:
************************
Let
estimated coefficient of the extra predictor in the second model
t = ----------------------------------------------------------------.
estimated standard error of that estimated coefficient
Refer t to the t-distribution with df = n-k, where n = # of
observations, and k = # of coefficients in the second model. (If the
model has an intercept then k = # of predictors + 1.) ?
***********************
But if this is not correct, please straighten me out here so that I
know (for general purposes) how to calculate coefficient-associated
probabilities.
II. Methodological matter:
You wrote:
?Regardless of the answers to my previous questions, you can't split
naturally paired p's, sort them, re-pair them, and then compare the re-
paired p's -- which you shouldn't compare in the first place, even
without the shuffling, because p-values are NOT effect sizes.?
OK ? thanks for explaining that.
Since I want to concentrate right now on your request for linearity
checks of Aubque_Se on L (and also the question of the nature of the
plots which you raised in your post of 12/13 @ 1108pm), I will not
pursue this matter further at the moment.
But after the checks are done, I would like to return to the question
of the correct way to investigate whether there is a MoSS and/or
Subset effect involving ?ueSlope on (ubar,ebar)? (which I?ll now refer
to as ueCoeff on (ubar,ebar), as per your terminological correction
noted in IA above.)
And if you can see right off that there is some necessary relationship
between the regression ueCoeff on (ubar,ebar) and the regression
Aubque on L, I?d be very curious to know what it is, inasmuch as I
think the data regarding ueCoeff on (ubar,ebar) will show a MoSS and/
or Subset effect when it is analyzed correctly.
Thanks as always for your patience.
|
|
