Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Maarten Buis <maartenlbuis@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: getting more precise numbers from -summarize- |

Date |
Thu, 19 May 2011 09:35:57 +0200 |

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Hewan Bela wrote: > This is important to me because I copy and paste the summarised results in excel to undertake computations with them, and if the numbers in the summary column are imprecise (e.g. a mean of 1.2e+08 for var4, where I wanted the mean to appear as a non-scientific number) then my excel calculations will be very imprecise as well. That is almost always wrong. Anything you can do in Excel you can also/better do in Stata. The real advantage of programs like Stata is that you can (and must) document your work by doing it all in one (set of) do-files. Remember that the argument we are making is: We have a question --> we get data --> we summarize that data (do statistics) --> we answer our question. The strength of our argument is based on the fact that the conclusion comes from stuff we have seen (the data), the summarizing/statistics part is only there to make the necessary patterns visible. For your argument to retain its strength there needs to be an exact record of what happens at the summarizing/statistics stage(*). One test is: do an entire analysis for one paper, don't touch that work for a month, after a month try to reproduce those exact same numbers. If you did not store your analysis in a .do file you will almost certainly fail that test.(**) If you still insist on degrading the strength of your own argument, you can look at -help collapse- in combination with -help outsheet-, with the former you can create a new dataset containing the summary statistics and with the latter you can export it to something Excel can read. Hope this helps, Maarten (*) This is of course a simplification, most of the real damage often happens at the data preparation/"cleaning" stage, so you also need an exact record of that too. (**) This also has practical relevance, as this test is a pretty accurate/optimistic representation of what happens when you get the reviews back from a paper you submitted to some journal... -------------------------- Maarten L. Buis Institut fuer Soziologie Universitaet Tuebingen Wilhelmstrasse 36 72074 Tuebingen Germany http://www.maartenbuis.nl -------------------------- * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: getting more precise numbers from -summarize-***From:*Hewan Belay <hewan_belay@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: getting more precise numbers from -summarize-** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: increasing variance when adding covariates (xtmelogit)** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: getting more precise numbers from -summarize-** - Next by thread:
**st: egen anycount** - Index(es):