-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Combine codes? #5
Comments
For the single-sp models, the idea was to give users flexibility to specify the allometric equation to use (which may not necessarily be the 'best-fit' one) when fitting the models, using For the mixed-effects model, is there a situation where the user would want to specify the equation to use? Since we're using the best-fit model, for consistent naming, let's use As for prediction/simulations in the single-sp models, For the mixed-effects models, perhaps this is less crucial, since there is only one model. The user doesn't have to refer to some kind of reference table, but simply use the regular Btw, the helper function u wrote is a great idea! I edited it allow customisation in terms of specifying the range of values for extrapolation of x (default no extrapolation) |
Yes, I think this situation will arise, so I will also write a
Feel free to change all my function names in the end. I'll try to be consistent while I code them.
This is implicitly implemented as a default for loglog or expo mixed models. We could consider adding an argument if we think the users should have a choice in this later on.
Let's use this for now. I am happy to make it more like your single-species case if there is demand for it.
Cool! |
I just pushed my latest changes, where I separated the functions mix_simulate() into mix_predict() and mix_simulate(), to allow user to make predictions using mixed-effects model for any other dataset. This is consistent with the naming for the single-species model functions. I think the package is more or less ready as a first version! Other than the possibility of adding |
Nope! I suggest that we release a beta version (say v0.1) with the accepted manuscript. And then I will spend some time after that adding |
@xp-song you separated model selection and model fitting in two steps. Also separated prediction from simulation.
I combined selection and fitting, and did not distinguish prediction and simulation...
Not sure which one is better. But you'll see what I mean when you look at my codes with the
_mlm
suffix.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: