Search Results for "result"

broom is part of the tidymodels ecosystem that converts statistical model outputs (e.g. from lm, glm, t.test, lme4, etc.) into tidy tibbles — standardized data frames — using functions tidy(), glance(), and augment(). These are easier to manipulate, visualize, and report programmatically.

statsmodels is a Python module that provides classes and functions for the estimation of many different statistical models, as well as for conducting statistical tests, and statistical data exploration. An extensive list of result statistics are available for each estimator. The results are tested against existing statistical packages to ensure that they are correct. The package is released under the open source Modified BSD (3-clause) license. Generalized linear models with support for all of the one-parameter exponential family distributions. Markov switching models (MSAR), also known as Hidden Markov Models (HMM). ...

TXM is a free and open-source cross-platform Unicode & XML based text analysis environment and graphical client, supporting Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. It can also be used online as a J2EE standard compliant web portal (GWT based) with access control built in. DOWNLOAD LATEST VERSION OF TXM : http://textometrie.ens-lyon.fr/spip.php?rubrique61&lang=en TXM offers a comprehensive range of analysis tools (concordances, collocate search, frequency lists, etc.) based on the powerfull CQP...

hSDM is an R package for hierarchical species distribution models. Such models allows interpreting the observations (occurrence and abundance of a species) as a result of several hierarchical processes including ecological processes (habitat suitability, spatial dependence and anthropogenic disturbance) and observation processes (species detectability). Hierarchical species distribution models are essential for accurately characterizing the environmental response of species, predicting their probability of occurrence, and assessing uncertainty in the model results.

...Because time after time, people come to me with some test that they've done that they think "proves" something - when in reality they've either not done a comparative test to start with (ex. a correlation), failed to test for confounding factors (such as normality etc) and as a result, failed to appropriately identify even the right test to do.