-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Simpson index #194
Comments
Michael suggested a revision in wording as follows: “I suggest keeping 1 - lambda because when lambda = 0 represents infinite diversity and lambda = 1 is no diversity. With 1 – lambda, 0 represents no diversity and 1 represents maximal diversity, which is more intuitive.” |
So, to document this a bit further: The problem is that What poppr is returning is actually the question becomes how to address it. I can do one of two things:
As both Michael and Nik pointed out, changing the calculation to match the variable name doesn't make sense because lambda itself doesn't make sense in terms of diversity, so we will update the name of the output and revising the documentation. Funny enough, the function Now, I just need to think about how to name it. Anything I name it will break backwards compatibility, but naming it something like |
For reference, here are all the instances of "lambda" in the code: |
Please place an "x" in all the boxes that apply
The Simpson index lambda as calculated is actually 1 - lambda (not lambda). This should be clarified in the vignette and user manuals. I suggest keeping 1 - lambda because when lambda = 0 this represents infinite diversity and lambda = 1 is no diversity. With 1 – lambda, 0 represents no diversity and 1 represents maximal diversity, which is more intuitive.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: