I am working with a large federal dataset with thousands of observations and thousands of variables. Replicate weights are provided. I am using the "survey" package in R to apply these weights:
els.weighted=svrepdesign(data=els, repweights = ~els$F3F1PNLWT,
combined.weights = TRUE).
I am interested in some categorical descriptive characteristics of a subset of the population, such as family living arrangements. I want to get these sorted out into a contingency table that shows frequency. I would like to sort people based on four variables (none of which are binary, but all of which are numeric) This is what I would like to get:
.
The blank boxes are where the cross-tabulation/frequency counts would show. (I only put in 3 columns beneath F1COMP for brevity's sake, but it has 9 outcomes – indexed 1-9)
My current code: svyby(~F1FCOMP, ~F1RTRCC +BYS33C +F1A10 +byurban, els.weighted, svytotal)
This code does sort the data, but it sorts every single combination, by default. I want them pared down to represent only specific subpopulations of each variable. I tried:
svyby(~F1FCOMP, ~F1RTRCC==2 |F1RTRCC==3 +BYS33C==1 +F1A10==2 | F1A10==3 +byurban==3, els.weighted, svytotal)
But got stopped:
Error: unexpected '==' in "svyby(~F1FCOMP, ~F1RTRCC==2 |F1RTRCC==3 +BYS33C=="
Additionally, my current version of the code tells me how many cases occur for each combination, This is a picture of what my current output looks like. There are hundreds more rows, 1 for each combination, when I keep scrolling down.
This is a picture of what my current output looks like. There are hundreds more rows, 1 for each combination, when I keep scrolling down
.
You can see in that picture that I only get one number for F1FCOMP per row – the number of cases who fit the specified combination – a specific subpopulation. I want to know more about that subpopulation. That is, F1COMP has nine different outcomes (indexed 1-9), and I want to see how many of each subpopulation fits into each of the 9 outcomes of F1COMP.
Related
I have a list of matrices containing association measurements between GPS tracked animals. One matrix in the list is observed association rates, the others are association rates for randomized versions of the GPS tracking trajectories. For example, I currently have 99 permutations of randomized tracking trajectories resulting in a list of 99 animal association matrices, plus the observed association matrix. I am expecting that for the animals that belong to the same pack, the observed association rates will be higher than the randomized association rates. Accordingly, I would like to determine the rank of the observed rates compared to the randomized rates for each dyad (cell). Essentially, I am doing a rank-permutation test. However, since I am only really concerned with determining if the observed association data is greater than the randomized trajectory association data, any result just giving the rank of the observed cells is sufficient.
ls <- list(matrix(10:18,3,3), matrix(18:10,3,3))
I've seen using sapply can get the ranks of particular cells. Could I do the following for all cells and take the final number in the resulting vector to get the rank of the cell in that position in the list (knowing the position of the observed data in the list of matrices, e.g. last).
rank(sapply(ls, '[',1,1))
The ideal result would be a matrix of the same form as those in the list giving the rank of the observed data, although any similar solutions are welcome. Thanks in advance.
You can proceed that way, but there are cleaner and quicker methods to get what you want.
Here's some code that would take your ls produce a 3x3 matrix with the following properties:
if the entry in ls[[1]] is greater than the corresponding entry of ls[[2]], record a 1
if the entry in ls[[1]] is less than the corresponding entry of ls[[2]], record a 2
if the entries are equal, record a 1.5
result <- 1 * (ls[[1]] > ls[[2]]) + 2 * (ls[[1]] < ls[[2]]) + 1.5 * (ls[[1]] == ls[[2]])
How it works: when we do something like ls[[1]] > ls[[2]], we are ripping out the matrices of interest and directly comparing them. The result of this bit of code is a T/F-populated matrix, which is secretly coded as a 0/1 matrix. We can then multiply it by whatever coefficient we want to represent that situation.
I'm actually working on tuna tag-recapture data. I want to balance my sampling between two groups of individuals, the ones that where tagged in the reference area (Treated group) and the ones that where tagged outside this area (Control group). To do this, I used the MatchIt package.
I have 3 covariates: length (by 5 cm bins), month of tagging (January to December) and structure on which the tuna was tagged.
So there is the model: treatment ~ length + month + structure
This last variable, is a categorical variable with 5 levels coded as A to E. The level A is almost only represented in the Treated group (6000 individuals with structure = A, vs on 300 individuals with structure = A in control group).
I first used the nearest neighbour method, but the improvement in balance was not satisfying. So I ran exact and Coarsened Exact Matching methods.
I though that Exact methods should match pairs with the same values for each covariates. But in the output matched data, there are still more than 3000 individuals with structure = A in the treated group.
Do you guys have one explanation ? I red a lot but I didn't find answers.
Thanks
Exact and coarsened exact matching do not perform 1:1 matching. They find all members in the control group that exactly match each member in the treated group. Subclasses are formed based on each combination of the predictor values, and any subclass that has both treated and control units is retained, and others dropped. There is no pairing that takes place. Your results indicate that you have many control units that have identical (or near-identical in the case of CEM) values of the covariates as some treated units.
I have a list like this:
A B score
B C score
A C score
......
where the first two columns contain the variable name and third column contains the score between both. Total number of variables is 250,000 (A,B,C....). And the score is a float [0,1]. The file is approximately 50 GB. And the pairs of A,B where scores are 1, have been removed as more than half the entries were 1.
I wanted to perform hierarchical clustering on the data.
Should I convert the linear form to a matrix with 250,000 rows and 250,000 columns? Or should I partition the data and do the clustering?
I'm clueless with this. Please help!
Thanks.
Your input data already is the matrix.
However hierarchical clustering usually scales O(n^3). That won't work with your data sets size. Plus, they usually need more than one copy of the matrix. You may need 1TB of RAM then... 2*8*250000*250000is a lot.
Some special cases can run in O(n^2): SLINK does. If your data is nicely sorted, it should be possible to run single-link in a single pass over your file. But you will have to implement this yourself. Don't even think of using R or something fancy.
I want to run a nested logistic regression in R, but the examples I found online didn't help much. I read over an example from this website (Step by step procedure on how to run nested logistic regression in R) which is similar to my problem, but I found that it seems not resolved in the end (The questioner reported errors and I didn't see more answers).
So I have 9 predictors (continuous scores), and 1 categorical dependent variable (DV). The DV is called "effect", and it can be divided into 2 general categories: "negative (0)" and "positive (1)". I know how to run a simple binary logit regression (using the general grouping way, i.e., negative (0) and positive (1)), but this is not enough. "positive" can be further grouped into two types: "physical (1)" and "mental (2)". So I want to run a nested model which includes these 3 categories (negative (0), physical (1), and mental (2)), and reflects the nature that "physical" and "mental" are nested in "positive". Maybe R can compare these two models (general vs. detailed) together? So I created two new columns, one is called "effect general", in which the individual scores are "negative (0)" and "positive (1)"; the other is called "effect detailed", which contains 3 values - negative (0), physical (1), and mental (2). I ran a simple binary logit regression only using "effect general", but I don't know how to run a nested logit model for "effect detailed".
From the example I searched and other materials, the R package "mlogit" seems right, but I'm stuck with how to make it work for my data. I don't quite understand the examples in R-help, and this part in the example from this website I mentioned earlier (...shape='long', alt.var='town.list', nests=list(town.list)...) makes me very confused: I can see that my data shape should be 'wide', but I have no idea what "alt.var" and "nests" are...
I also looked at page 19 of the mlogit manual for examples of nested logit model calls. But I still cannot decide what I need in terms of options. (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mlogit/mlogit.pdf)
Could someone provide me with detailed steps and notes on how to do it? I'm sure this example (if well discussed and resolved) is also going to help me and others a lot!
Thanks for your help!!!
I can help you with understanding the mlogit structure. When using the mlogit.data() command, specify choice = yourchoicevariable (and id.var = respondentid if you have a panel dataset, i.e. you have multiple responses from the same individual), along with the shape='wide' argument. The new data.frame created will be in long format, with a line for each choice situation, negative, physical, mental. So you will have 3 rows for which you only had one in the wide data format. Whatever your MN choice var is, it will now be a column of logical values, with TRUE for the row that the respondent chose. The row names will now have be in the format of observation#.level(choice variable) So in your case, if the first row of your dataset the person had a response of negative, you would see:
row.name | choice
1.negative | TRUE
1.physical | FALSE
1.mental | FALSE
Also not that the actual factor level for each choice is stored in an index called alt of the mlogit.data.frame which you can see by index(your.data.frame) and the observation number (i.e. the row number from your wide format data.frame) is stored in chid. Which is in essence what the row.name is telling you, i.e. chid.alt. Also note you DO NOT have to specify alt.var if your data is in wide format, only long format. The mlogit.data function does that for you as I have just described. Essentially, it takes unique(choice) when you specify your choice variable and creates the alt.var for you, so it is redundant if your data is in wide format.
You then specify the nests by adding to the mlogit() command a named list of the nests like this, assuming your factor levels are just '0','1','2':
mlogit(..., nests = c(negative = c('0'), positive = c('1','2')
or if the factor levels were 'negative','physical','mental' it would be the like this:
mlogit(..., nests = c(negative = c('negative'), positive = c('physical','mental')
Also note a nest of one still MUST be specified with a c() argument per the package documentation. The resulting model will then have the iv estimate between nests if you specify the un.nest.el=T argument, or nest specific estimates if un.nest.el=F
You may find Kenneth Train's Examples useful
The title is not precisely stated but I could not come up with other words which summarizes what I exactly going to ask.
I have a table of the following form:
value (0<v<1) # of events
0.5677 100000
0.5688 5000
0.1111 6000
... ...
0.5688 200000
0.1111 35000
Here are some of the things I like to do with this table: drawing the histogram, computing mean value, fitting the distribution, etc. So far, I could only figure out how to do this with vectors like
v=(0.5677,...,0.5688,...,0.1111,...)
but not with tables.
Since the number of possible values are huge by being almost continuous, I guess making a new table would not be that effective, so doing this without modifying the original table and making another table would be desirable very much. But if it has to be done so, it's okay. Thanks in advance.
Appendix: What I want to figure out is how to treat this table as a usual data vector:
If I had the following vector representing the exact same data as above:
v= (0.5677, ...,0.5677 , 0.5688, ... 0.5688, 0.1111,....,0.1111,....)
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
(100000 times) (5000+200000 times) (6000+35000) times
then we just need to apply the basic functions like plot, mean, or etc to get what I wanted. I hope this makes my question more clear.
Your data consist of a value and a count for that value so you are looking for functions that will use the count to weight the value. Type ?weighted.mean to get information on a function that will compute the mean for weighted (grouped) data. For density plots, you want to use the weights= argument in the density() function. For the histogram, you just need to use cut() to combine values into a small number of groups and then use aggregate() to sum the counts for all the values in the group. You will find a variety of weighted statistical measures in package Hmisc (wtd.mean, wtd.var, wtd.quantile, etc).