From 7c31a816a2c6b18dff3d01ad817ab0fa239aa56b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: egouldo Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:23:03 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] switch to round pluck and semantically extract in-text outputs --- supp_mat/SM3_ExplainingDeviation.qmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/supp_mat/SM3_ExplainingDeviation.qmd b/supp_mat/SM3_ExplainingDeviation.qmd index 08dee84..98fb830 100644 --- a/supp_mat/SM3_ExplainingDeviation.qmd +++ b/supp_mat/SM3_ExplainingDeviation.qmd @@ -1321,7 +1321,7 @@ multivar_performance_tidy <- multivar_mods %>% ``` The multivariate models did a poor job of explaining how different from the meta-analytic mean each analysis would be. -For the blue tit analyses the $R^{2}$ value for the whole model was `r round(bt_multivar_mod_R[2],2)` and for the fixed effects component was `r round (bt_multivar_mod_R[1],2)`, and the residual standard deviation for the model was `r round(bt_multivar_mod_sigma,2)`. +For the blue tit analyses the $R^{2}$ value for the whole model was `r round_pluck(bt_multivar_mod_R, "R2_conditional")` and for the fixed effects component was `r round_pluck(bt_multivar_mod_R, "R2_marginal")`, and the residual standard deviation for the model was `r round(bt_multivar_mod_sigma,2)`. Further, all of the fixed effects had 95% confidence intervals that overlaped 0. This evidence is all consistent with none of the predictor variables in this model (continuous review rating, categorical review rating, distinctiveness of variables included) having any meaningful effect on how far $Z_r$ estimates fell from the meta-analytic mean for the blue tit analyses. The pattern is largely similar for the *Eucalyptus* multivariate analysis, in which $R^{2}$ for the whole model was `r round(euc_multivar_mod_R[2],2)` and for the fixed effects component was `r round (euc_multivar_mod_R[1],2)`, and the residual standard deviation for the model was `r round(euc_multivar_mod_sigma,2)`.