-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Dcm ngm primer #53
Dcm ngm primer #53
Conversation
No where even close to done, just making it a draft right now so I can use PR tools. |
Also, there will be so many commits on this as I figure my way through how I want to write about this in a way that's hopefully clear and useful to others. I'll plan to squash as many commits as I think reasonable closer to when a draft is complete. |
4abfdaf
to
940b8dd
Compare
changing primer name and topic shift adding relationship to branching processes changing language, will squash later
language change language change v not m matrix to and from direction reorg material more careful language
commenting out some lines, new text
clearning up use as model section other DFE cleaning up rescaling explanation add context about spectral radius commenting out different population sizes part for now unfinished sections named
940b8dd
to
ef458ff
Compare
… the actual NGM in the model
… definition removing unneeded commented lines removing separate in this repo section
ad16daa
to
3bc5762
Compare
This feels like a fairly comprehensive review of NGMs. Fwiw, the formulation in the approach doc, |
…line wihth mkdocs set up
…on transition and transmission matrices, moved formal definition above conditions and limitations
…or and infectee in example
Thanks @paigemiller! Made a few changes to address yourfeedback:
|
@dinacmistry I think this is mature enough that we should just merge it? We can revisit in #91 , to see how this will work with other docs |
Re-requested your review - need approval for the merge. Thanks! |
Just a heads up: there were a lot of great points brought up in this PR. Some were out of scope so I made issues for them either in this repo or in the recipes repo if it required more math details/explanations. I think we should merge this now. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me! just suggested a few small edits to improve readability
Got it, will make those edits and then merge. Thanks Paige! |
No description provided.