{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/cgrandin/hake-assessment/issues/350","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/cgrandin/hake-assessment","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/cgrandin/hake-assessment/issues/350/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/cgrandin/hake-assessment/issues/350/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/cgrandin/hake-assessment/issues/350/events","html_url":"https://github.com/cgrandin/hake-assessment/issues/350","id":293650112,"number":350,"title":"edits needed for Table 17","user":{"login":"taylori","id":4992918,"avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/4992918?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori","html_url":"https://github.com/taylori","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taylori/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-02-01T19:14:38Z","updated_at":"2018-02-01T19:14:38Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"COLLABORATOR","body":"Table 17 (Summary of estimated model parameters and priors in the base model) has a few issues, mostly related to the switch to 3.30. I can attempt to make these changes, but I suspect that @cgrandin could do a better job at it. Please everyone comment if any of these don't seem like good ideas or don't make sense.\r\n\r\n- For parameters that are not estimated, such as SigmaR, I think we could just have a dash or NA for the bounds and prior columns since they really don't matter.\r\n- The ranges reported for the Uniform priors don't match the bounds, but they should. We could also just leave it at \"Uniform\" and not repeat the bounds.\r\n- Remove text \"(double normal)\" from section heading.\r\n- Age range of estimated selectivity parameters for the survey should be 3-6, not 2-5. Range for fishery is correctly reported as 2-6 (fishery parameter for age 1 is fixed because of 1 fewer degree of freedom as noted in section \"Variability on fishery selectivity deviations\", as is survey parameters for age 2).\r\n- The SD for the deviations on the selectivity parameters (phi) is no longer in column 12 of the parameter line, but now a separate fixed parameter with labels \"AgeSel_P3_Fishery(1)_dev_se\" through \"AgeSel_P7_Fishery(1)_dev_se\", but all values are set equal so any one of them could be accessed via something like `model$parameters[\"AgeSel_P3_Fishery(1)_dev_se\",\"Value\"]`. We could enter this as a separate row in the table and then give the prior on the deviations a distribution of Normal(0, phi).\r\n- Due to the addition of the Dirichlet-Multinomial likelihood, we have 2 additional estimated parameters, which could get their own section called something like \"Data weighting\". The have labels \"ln(EffN_mult)_1\" and \"ln(EffN_mult)_2\" but should probably be called `$\\log(\\theta)$` to match text in new section \"2.4.4 Age composition likelihood\"."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"taylori"}}