Date: Dec 7, 2012 2:25 PM
Author: Ray Koopman
Subject: Re: SE's and p's for four subset x MoSS roll-ups of u*e coefficient<br> in c = (u,e,u*e)

On Dec 7, 9:27 am, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:
> Here are the average SE and p values for u*e in the regression c on
> (u,e,u*e), for each value of subset x Moss | (Fold,Set,Len) =
> (all,all,all)
>
> --------------------
> subset
> x u*e
> Method SE p
>
> SxN 0.491 0.454
> SxC 0.602 0.462
> SxR 0.547 0.463
> SxC 0.512 0.478
> --------------------


I'm confused by the "subset x Method" labels in this and your two
previous posts. If the Subsets are S and C, and the Methods are N
and R, then the labels should be some permutation of (S,N), (S,R),
(C,N), and (C,R).

Also, as I've mentioned before, the "x" is usually used to refer to
factors -- e.g., Subset x Method -- not particular combinations of
levels of the factors. The "x" denotes the Cartesian product of the
two factors; each combination is an ordered pair, conceptually the
same as ordinary (x,y) coordinates. (The parentheses can be dropped,
as befits the context.)

>
> Unlike the previous case of u^2 in c on (e,u,u*e,u^2), SxN DOES have
> the lowest SE and the lowest p.
>
> Now, I'm sure you'll say the differences are meaningless.
>
> But there has to be some reason why the average slope Aube of the e
> coefficient in c = (u,e,u*e) is giving us the striking "het" result at
> method = N and sets 1, 3:
>
> a1 a3 b1 b47 c1 c2
> C S C S c S c S C S C S "Het"
>
> N1 Aube H H L L H H H H L L L L 0
> N3 Aube L L H H L L H H H H L L 0