You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are many ways to estimate growth parameters and it is not consistent between nwfscSurvey and PacFIN.Utilities. Furthermore, parameter estimates are different depending on the parameterization.
I had originally started a new branch to do this, but it moved from the icebox to a broken down unplugged freezer. I plan on
An approach for estimating growth in terms of L0 has been created within the new est_growth function. This function works similar to the approach in the {PacFIN.Utilities} package where a predicted length along with a ranged of potential low and high values based on a pre-specified number of standard deviations. The est_growth function calls the same function as the {PacFIN.Utilities} package which is called fit_vbgrowth and is housed in the {nwfscSurvey} package.
Problem
There are many ways to estimate growth parameters and it is not consistent between nwfscSurvey and PacFIN.Utilities. Furthermore, parameter estimates are different depending on the parameterization.
I had originally started a new branch to do this, but it moved from the icebox to a broken down unplugged freezer. I plan on
vbgrowth
as part of Clean-up existing branches #50 andProposed solution
Implement many ways of estimating growth. Talk to @shcaba and @melissamonk-NOAA because they both do this independently of the packages. Maybe even @ChristineStawitz-NOAA.
nwfscSurvey::PlotVarLengthAtAge.fn()
parameterized in terms of L0 and not t0, @melissamonk-NOAA has ideasnwfscSurvey::PlotVarLengthAtAge.fn()
; clear labels for axes; alternative textThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: