I've been trying to use R to estimate BKT group parameters. I found the following site, which seems like it might be helpful to do this:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Machine_Learning/HMM_R_Example
However, I'm having a lot of trouble applying this to all the KC's for my data. Has anyone else done something like this and would like to explain how to go about doing it?
Additionally, if possible, I'd like to find the individualized difference weights after finding the BKT group parameters, but if I could just do the latter right now, I'd be happy.
Related
Struggling to find rank values from highest to lowest, please see attached example of what I'm trying to achieve.
My current custom expression is:
Sum([ViolationAmt])
I have tried this:
Sum([ViolationAmt]) over Rank([ViolationAmt])
I've played around with the rank expressions however unable to implement...would be very grateful for some help.
Spotfire Rank Example
I need to make a lot of assumptions here because I don't know anything about your data set or really what your end goal is, so please comment back and/or provide more info in your question if I am off base.
the first assumption is that each row in your dataset represents one, for simplicity, [AccountID] with a [ViolationAmt]. I'm also guessing you want to show the top N accounts with the highest violations in a table, since that's what you've shown here.
so it sounds like you are going to need two calculated columns: one for getting the total [ViolationAmt] per account, and then another to rank them.
for the first, create a column called [TotalViolationAmt] or somesuch and use:
Sum([ViolationAmt]) OVER ([AccountID])
for the second:
Rank([TotalViolationAmt])
it will be useful to read the documentation on ranking functions if you haven't already.
you could probably combine these two into a single column with something like:
Rank(Sum([ViolationAmt]) OVER ([AccountID]))
but I haven't tested this at all. again, if you put in a bit more detail about what you're trying to accomplish it will help you get a better, more detailed answer :)
I have found several questions that are similar but no solution worked as needed, or used internal functions. This is the most relevant one:
Getting data for d3 from ArangoDB using AQL (or arangojs)
I'm unable to understand how to return a single response with a tree structure of parent + children. Something that D3 can understand. Whatever I do, beyond the first iteration, everything is a mess. I have tried MERGE and MERGE_RECURSIVE but it just did not work as I thought of.
I'm clueless to how I can make it to work. I'm used to Neo4J and for some reason this one is just hard for me to understand.
Any help will do,
Thanks,
DD.
I found a simple solution. I'm just using AQL to get a flat list of results and their edges. After that, I just sort it as I need on my code
I may have misunderstood what index is, after reading my question, you'll soon realize so please correct me if i was wrong. anyhow,
Is there any tutorial on paginating in codeigniter. Something that is simple and concise, i don't need complex ones since ill have hard time understanding the whole code.
A B C D
Ants
Airplane
Something like above, instead of number paging, would it be possible to paginate by first letters?
Ive encountered alot of sites that have these although im not sure if coding this would need any add-ons.
I think you have to build one. already this topic is disccused in CI forum.
Please check the forum link:
http://ellislab.com/forums/viewthread/164849/
So I have no problem simplifying using topojson from the command line using the -s flag, however, I can't figure out how to do it from the node module.
I see a topojson.simplify() method, but I can't figure out how it works as there is no documentation.
Does anyone have any insight?
By looking at the simplification tests for topojson, I was able to figure out how to use toposjson.simplify(), but I can't fully claim to know whats going on. You can see the tests on the topojson github.
Basically topojson.simplify takes a topology input and has 2 possible options for simplification, "retain-proportion" and "minimum-area", you can also pass the coordinate system, aka "cartesian" or "spherical", although it can be inferred under most circumstances.
examples:
output = topojson.simplify(topology,{"minimum-area": 2,"coordinate-system": "spherical"});
output =topojson.simplify(topology,{"retain-proportion: 2,"coordinate-system": "spherical"});
I am not really sure exactly what the values you pass into these options mean, however higher values tends to produce more simplification. As a note, retain proportion often returns invalid topologies when passed LineStrings, that may be as intended.
Additionally using the quantization option in topojson.topology can be used to create a smaller, simpler output and may be the best solution to some similar use cases and also doesn't have any clearly documented server API examples anywhere so:
//very simplified, small output
topojson.topology({routes: routesCollection},{"quantization":100});
//very unfiltered, large output
topojson.topology({routes: routesCollection},{"quantization":1e8});
note: the default quantization is 10000 (1e4), so anything less than 10000 will create a smaller output and vice versa.
This is probably pretty stupid, but I'm still green to LDAP. So I hope someone can lend me a hand.
I am using Apache Directory Studio to do my searches and I am confused about when I should be using a filter or when I should be breaking up my filter into two, using one part as the filter and the other as my search base.
Here's an example where I'm trying filter out a group.
Filter: CN=JohnTestGroup,OU=TECH,DC=lab,DC=ing
Base: DC=lab,DC=ing
This yielded zero results. I realized that perhaps I am being redundant as part of the base is in the filter, so I got rid of that part in the filter.
Filter: CN=JohnTestGroup,OU=TECH
Base: DC=lab,DC=ing
This still did not yield anything. So I tried this:
Filter: CN=JohnTestGroup
Base: OU=TECH,DC=lab,DC=ing
I moved the OU parameter into the Base. This worked, but I don't understand why the first or second attempts didn't. Someone care to drop some knowledge on me?
This is probably a matter of syntax/semantics, so if anyone could point me to a resource, I'd be more than willing to read more about it.
Read about Scopes there: http://www.idevelopment.info/data/LDAP/LDAP_Resources/SEARCH_Setting_the_SCOPE_Parameter.shtml
If you set you search scope to SUBTREE both (2 and 3), possible 1 variants start work, but searching by subtree works slower
I think you are misunderstanding how the filter works. It is meant to be key=value pairings.
So (objectClass=iNetOrgPerson) as an example.
If you wish a filter to find a DN, then you pick an identifying chracteristic like CN, and filter (CN=JohnTestGroup) or perhaps (mail=John#mail.net).
The base tells the LDAP server where to start looking, as seriyPS notes in his/her answer, the SCOPE is the next question. How deep should the server search, as that adds overhead and performance issues. Subtree is simplist conceptually. Just keep looking from here down, till you run out of tree to look through.
That is why your last one works.
Now, if you want to find a specific object and you know its DN, you do an ENTRY scope query for the base of the specific DN.