[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Nick Cox" <[email protected]> |

To |
<[email protected]> |

Subject |
RE: st: RE: bugs using _all |

Date |
Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:34:45 +0100 |

```
Indeed. The sort index is one variable
and so is part of _all. Here it shows up
as __000000. So, whether you get results
or not, -logit _all- is to be avoided.
So too is -logit *-.
Other than
logit vote-black
there are various automated ways of
throwing all variables at -logit-.
One is
unab all : *
logit `all'
but that is more a Stata point than a
recommendation.
Nick
[email protected]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jun Xu
> Sent: 11 July 2005 00:15
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: st: RE: bugs using _all
>
>
> Nick,
>
> Thanks! I think I willl be more cautious using these terms.
> Following is
> another example, and as you said, it is related to a temp var.
>
> . use "H:\data\cps5000.dta", clear
> (register00all.dta is obtained by data managing register00.dta.)
>
> . keep vote white black
>
> . logit _all
>
> Iteration 0: log likelihood = -3097.9733
> Iteration 1: log likelihood = -3084.2206
> Iteration 2: log likelihood = -3084.2127
>
> Logistic regression Number of
> obs =
> 4583
> LR chi2(3)
> =
> 27.52
> Prob > chi2
> =
> 0.0000
> Log likelihood = -3084.2127 Pseudo R2
> =
> 0.0044
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> vote | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf.
> Interval]
> -------------+------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> white | .580768 .1150094 5.05 0.000 .3553539
> .8061822
> black | .3906235 .1460116 2.68 0.007
> .1044459
> .676801
> __000000 | -1.01e-06 .0000209 -0.05 0.961
> -.000042
> .00004
> _cons | -.1424608 .1204319 -1.18 0.237 -.378503
> .0935814
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
>
> . logit vote white black
>
> Iteration 0: log likelihood = -3097.9733
> Iteration 1: log likelihood = -3084.2217
> Iteration 2: log likelihood = -3084.2139
>
> Logistic regression Number of
> obs =
> 4583
> LR chi2(2)
> =
> 27.52
> Prob > chi2
> =
> 0.0000
> Log likelihood = -3084.2139 Pseudo R2
> =
> 0.0044
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> vote | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf.
> Interval]
> -------------+------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> white | .5805815 .1149446 5.05 0.000 .3552941
> .8058688
> black | .3904015 .1459396 2.68 0.007 .1043651
> .6764379
> _cons | -.1448309 .1100522 -1.32 0.188 -.3605292
> .0708673
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> Jun Xu
> Ph.D. Candidate
> Department of Sociology
> Indiana University at Bloomington
> http://mypage.iu.edu/~junxu/home
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Nick Cox" <[email protected]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Subject: st: RE: bugs using _all
> >Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:30:38 +0100
> >
> >The Statalist FAQ advises this:
> >
> >--------------------
> >Don't say "Is this a bug?". Almost all the time, it is not!
> >--------------------
> >
> >However, you have, I guess been bitten by something
> >designed to protect you.
> >
> >When you type -logit-, you fire up a wrapper program
> >which, among other things, creates a temporary variable
> >recording the sort order, so that your data can be
> >left in their current sort order when -logit- is done.
> >
> >This temporary variable is thus part of _all when
> >-logit- passes the ball. Evidently it is true that
> >your data order are in the sort order of your response
> >variable, so -logit- bails out for the reason given.
> >
> >This is fixable by StataCorp, although I am not
> >sure how keen they will be to do it. The code to
> >fix it is embedded within -egen.ado-, for which
> >the fix is arguably more important.
> >
> >The easiest fix is just not to do this, in the way
> >that you have demonstrated. In most circumstances,
> >firing all the variables at a binary response is
> >likely to be poor science. I guess in your case
> >it just seemed a neat short-cut.
> >
> >I can't comment on your other cases not documented
> >here.
> >
> >Nick
> >[email protected]
> >
> >Jun Xu
> >
> > > Could be that I missed something, but it might be a bug.
> I found that
> > > sometimes, I will get weird results or simply refusal to
> > > estimate a simple
> > > logit model. For example (lfp is the first variable in the list),
> > >
> > > . logit _all
> > >
> > > outcome = __000000 > 325 predicts data perfectly
> > > r(2000);
> > >
> > > . logit lfp-inc
> >
> >*
> >* For searches and help try:
> >* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> >* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> >* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
```

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: RE: bugs using _all***From:*"Scott Merryman" <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: RE: bugs using _all** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: RE: bugs using _all** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: RE: bugs using _all** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: RE: bugs using _all** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |