I saw this earlier; double-posting is discouraged. If you don't get a
reply, it's more likely that you wrote a poorly-formed question than
that nobody saw it.
For instance, this is not a reproducible example, and we know nothing
about your data, so nobody can judge whether the results you're
getting are reasonable, or if there's a way to get more information.
That makes your question unanswerable. If you want an answer, you'll
need to follow the posting guide and provide the requested
reproducible example.
Sarah
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:30 PM, <abigailclif...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have this code:
> Prepared_Data <- na.omit(read.csv("Prepared_Data.csv", header=TRUE))
> pd <- Prepared_Data[,-3] ## data minus response variable
>
> lev <- sapply(pd,function(x) length(unique(x)))
>
> ## total parameters for n variables
> par(las=1,bty="l")
> plot(cumprod(lev),log="y")
>
> library(Matrix)
> m <- sparse.model.matrix(~.^2,data=pd)
> ncol(m)
>
> library(glmnet)
> g1 <- glmnet(m,Prepared_Data$C3, family="binomial")
> Coef(g1)
>
>
>
> Which prints out the coefficients of g1. However there are very few numerical
> coefficients, and many dots. Is there any way to get numerical values for all
> factors/terms, making it a more complete model without lots of gaps?
>
--
Sarah Goslee
http://www.functionaldiversity.org
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
