From 05df90d8328b804ad1efe92c81e9ace491b386ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Ranke Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:47:48 +0200 Subject: Update vignette and static docs --- docs/dev/reference/parms.html | 17 ++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'docs/dev/reference/parms.html') diff --git a/docs/dev/reference/parms.html b/docs/dev/reference/parms.html index ded4567a..949bb2f9 100644 --- a/docs/dev/reference/parms.html +++ b/docs/dev/reference/parms.html @@ -46,11 +46,14 @@ without considering the error structure that was assumed for the fit.">Example evaluations of dimethenamid data from 2018 with nonlinear mixed-effects models
  • - Example evaluation of FOCUS Example Dataset Z + Short demo of the multistart method
  • Performance benefit by using compiled model definitions in mkin
    • +
  • + Example evaluation of FOCUS Example Dataset Z +
  • Calculation of time weighted average concentrations with mkin
    • @@ -80,7 +83,7 @@ without considering the error structure that was assumed for the fit.">

    Extract model parameters

    - Source: R/parms.mkinfit.R + Source: R/parms.R
    @@ -97,7 +100,10 @@ without considering the error structure that was assumed for the fit.

    parms(object, transformed = FALSE, errparms = TRUE, ...) # S3 method for mmkin -parms(object, transformed = FALSE, errparms = TRUE, ...) +parms(object, transformed = FALSE, errparms = TRUE, ...) + +# S3 method for multistart +parms(object, exclude_failed = TRUE, ...)
    @@ -119,6 +125,11 @@ during the optimisation?

    Should the error model parameters be returned in addition to the degradation parameters?

    + +
    exclude_failed
    +

    For multistart objects, should rows for failed fits +be removed from the returned parameter matrix?

    +

    Value

    -- cgit v1.2.1