Panel Override defaults with $.fn.panel.defaults. The panel is used as a container for other contents. It is the base component for building other components such as layout, tabs, accordion, etc. It also provides built-in collapsible, closable, maximizable and minimizable behavior and other customized behavior. Panels can be easily embedded into any position of web page. How to use this component, we take the picture as an example. The Panel is a container which can containt other components or elements, take the layout for example, the main codes as: div id=p class=easyui- panel title=My Panel style=width:500px;height:150px;padding:20px;background:#fafafa; iconCls=icon-save closable=true collapsible=true minimizable=true maximizable=true div class=easyui-layout data-options=fit:true div region='west' split=true style=width:100px;padding:10px; Left Content /div div region='center' style=padding:10px; Right Content /div /div /div it is contained by other component such as layout, etc.. we can create the Panle by javascript, the main codes is div id=pp class=easyui-panel script type=text/javascript ＄(function() { ＄ (#pp).panel({ width:500, height:150, title:my Panel, collapsible:true, //minimizable=true, //maximizable=true, //minimized:true, //maximized:true, //closable:true, //noheader:true, content:ullispanApple /lilispanOrange/li/ul, tools: , onBeforeOpen:onBeforeOpen, onOpen: onOpen, onBeforeCollapse:onBeforeCollapse, onCollapse:onCollapse, onBeforeExpand:onBeforeExpand, onExpand:onExpand }); }); ＄ (#pp).panel(move, { top : 500, left : 500 }); function add() { alert(add); } function edit() { alert(edit); } function cut() { alert(cut); } function help() { alert(help); } function loadData(){ ＄ ('#pp').panel('refresh', '../panel/_content.html'); } function save() { alert(save); } function onBeforeOpen() { alert(onBeforeOpen); } function onOpen() { alert(onOpen); } function onBeforeCollapse() { alert(onBeforeCollapse); } function onCollapse() { alert(onCollapse); } function onBeforeExpand() { alert(onBeforeExpand); } function onExpand() { alert(onExpand); } /script reference url: http://www.jeasyui.com/documentation/index.php# basic.html
Who should read this Blog? Any first-time PI, who intends to write a proposal to NASA for funding. Or anyone who is interested in knowing how a U.S. funding agent decides on which proposals to fund or not. Background for posting these old notes: A friend of mine is serving on a review panel to decide the fate of 350 proposals. This reminded me of my past experience as a panel member, which I shared (reluctantly) with some of my colleagues. If you dont know some of the abbreviations in my notes below, you may assume its a government agent (such as NASA, NOAA, NSF), or a program (such as ESE/NRA), or an institute/center (such as JPL, APDRC), or an ocean model (OGCM), or a data product (such as ECCO). Dear colleagues, Toni (not her real name) encouraged me to forward my notes to you, the notes I took during and after I severed on a NASA panel to review proposals. I am reluctant, because I don't like to put things in writing. However, I trust her good intention, so here it is, with some additions in bold-faced fonts. Regards, Zuojun 1) For this panel, there were 128 proposals. No mail reviews conducted. 2) Each of the 20 some panel members received a FedEx package a month before the panel meeting. 3) There were about three weeks of time for reviewers to read the assigned proposals, to write the reviews, and to submit them electronically. The web site was closed for review submission one week before the panel met in D.C. In theory, each reviewer should have enough time to finish the assignment, working on one proposal per day (meaning reading a proposal and writing the review). In practice, I read on average two proposals per day, some read 4-5 proposals per day just before the deadline for web submission, and some never submitted much writing before the deadline. My point here is that the proposal has to be very well written to convince the reviewers of its value. 4) When the panel finally met, each proposal was given about 15 minutes of time for the primary reviewer to have the opening remark, followed by the two secondary reviewers, questions and comments were then welcomed by the panel members before their votes were counted. The reviewers were allowed to change their original scores for many reasons... (The most important one was triggered by the exercise the program manager did at the beginning of the panel meeting: He started the meeting with Group 0 proposals, about five of them all together. When Group 0 was finished, we realized that they were post child for Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair proposal ratings. Following that exercise, some of the reviewers adjusted their scores during the rest of the week.) 5) The panel's votes were calculated into one score, which was entered as 1/4 of the final score. So, a dynamics primary reviewer in favor of the proposal was critical, so were the opinions of the secondary reviewers, because the rest of the panel did not read the proposal in discussion. Each panel member was given the whole collection of the 128 abstracts before the meeting, and one may request a copy of a proposal of particular interest to him. There was a copy available for the panel at the time of discussion as well. 6) The role of the program manager: He read all the 128 proposals and made notes of his opinions. He also spoke of his views whenever he wanted to, and sometimes quite authoritatively . 7) Final show: three blocks for each subject, core physical oceanography, air-sea fluxes, new instrument development, etc. The program manager went over each block, citing his reasons for the placement (ranking of proposals) and asking for advice. My notes/hints taken during the panel meeting: 1) Write well; including logically organizing the proposal, giving detailed work plan (year by year ), and using larger fonts and italicized or bold-faced fonts to highlight the hypothesis, etc. (Toni asked:How about the English? Yes, good English is very important. This remark is not directed to non-native speakers, because I read some poorly written proposals by English-speaking colleagues.This was before I became a freelance English editor.) 2) Emphasize the proposal's relevance to ESE/NRA, especially what the PI can give back to NASA! 3) Know the past literature well, including citing seminal papers in the field as (30-year-) old as they may be; 4) Attach unpublished manuscript and pubs in press (so the reviewers can't complain, even if they don't have time to read any). Also, some reviewers were critical about PIs' past experience (in terms of pubs in the proposed field), they might give a low score to a proposal simply because the PI never before did any work on the subject (say biology, or numerical modeling); 5) Don't propose new field research, use existing fund instead to get at least one pub out first); 6) Don't assume the reviewers are from the same field (unlike NSF's mail review process); e.g., some satellite people reviewed a numerical modeling proposal, and gave a low score because he didn't know what penetrative shortwave radiation meant in an OGCM, and didn't see an equation for it nor any explanation for how to implement the term; the last two points were valid criticisms though; 7) Validation, validation, validation; some numerical modeling proposals without validation component by field observations can be rated down; 8) Follow the budget rules (1/4 million dollars/year for this NRA); 9) Disclose related funding (especially those from NASA for similar type of work); 10) If collaborating with NOAA personnel, one should be extremely cautious about the relevance with NASA (why should NASA fund this proposal, not NOAA?) and ask for NO money for buying NOAA computing facility). My other thoughts/observations: 1) The primary reviewer is very important, but the secondary reviewers with strong-opinions are also critical because each casts 1/4 of the overall score; 2) Consensus form: Wording was required to match the overall score, the only score that the PI will see, especially for those at 3 or lower; more weaknesses were asked for proposals on the bubble in case they are turned down at the end due to limited funds available; 3) Two okay proposals may help to bring one UP for funding? 4) ECCO is considered NASA product/investment, so someone should validate/use it. Right now, ECCO is mostly used by ECCO people at JPL; so you should write a proposal using ECCO; 5) If one might lose his job when this proposal doesn't get funded, the manager might want to save his career. My advice for NOAA researchers: One should look at the statistics: How many NOAA (related) people actually get funded by NASA (before spending any time on writing NASA proposals).
Panel Data Econometrics: STATA Command *************************** * Panel的设置 和描述性统计 . tsset // Declare a dataset to be panel data panel variable: firmid (unbalanced) time variable: yeara, 1990 to 2006, but with gaps . xtdes firmid: 1 , 2 , ..., 3218 n = 3219 yeara: 1989 , 1990 , ..., 2006 T = 18 Delta(yeara) = 1 ; (2006-1989)+1 = 18 (firmid*yeara uniquely identifies each observation) . xtsum // Summarize xt data . xttab // Tabulate xt data *************************** * Hausman test http://fmwww.bc.edu/ec-c/s2009/327/ec327.s2009.php use traffic, clear summarize fatal beertax spircons unrate perincK * Fixed-effects (within) regression xtreg fatal beertax spircons unrate perincK, fe * Fixed-effects (within) regression，adding year dummies first qui tabulate year, generate(yr) local j 0 forvalues i=82/87 { local ++j rename yrj yri qui replace yri = yri - yr7 } drop yr7 xtreg fatal beertax spircons unrate perincK yr*, fe test yr82 yr83 yr84 yr85 yr86 yr87 * Between regression (regression on group means) xtreg fatal beertax spircons unrate perincK, be * Random-effects GLS regression xtreg fatal beertax spircons unrate perincK, re * Hausman test qui xtreg fatal beertax spircons unrate perincK, fe estimates store fix qui xtreg fatal beertax spircons unrate perincK, re hausman fix . *************************** * Dynamic panel: xtabond2 http://fmwww.bc.edu/ec-c/s2009/327/xtabond2.pdf use http://www.stata-press.com/data/r7/abdata.dta,clear * Dynamic panel- data estimation, one-step difference GMM xtabond2 n l.n l(0/1).(w k) yr1980-yr1984, gmm(l.n w k) iv(yr1980-yr1984) /// noleveleq small * Dynamic panel-data estimation, two-step system GMM xtabond2 n l.n l(0/1).(w k) yr1980-yr1984, gmm(l.n w k) iv(yr1980-yr1984, mz) /// robust twostep small h(2) xtabond2 n l(1/2).n l(0/1).w l(0/2).(k ys) yr1980-yr1984, gmm(l.n w k) iv(yr1980-yr1984) /// robust twostep small xtabond2 n l(1/2).n l(0/1).w l(0/2).(k ys), gmm(w k, lag(1 .)) gmm(ys, lag(2 .)) iv(yr198*, eq(lev)) /// robust twostep *************************** * Dynamic panel: xtabond2 http://fmwww.bc.edu/ec-c/s2009/327/ec327.s2009.php http://fmwww.bc.edu/ec-c/s2009/327/xtabond2.pdf * Dynamic panel-data estimation, two-step difference GMM xtabond2 fatal L.fatal spircons year, /// gmmstyle(beertax spircons unrate perincK) /// ivstyle(year) twostep robust noleveleq * Dynamic panel-data estimation, two-step system GMM xtabond2 fatal L.fatal spircons year, /// gmmstyle(beertax spircons unrate perincK) /// ivstyle(year) twostep robust ----------------------- Using Arellano Bond Dynamic Panel GMM Estimators in Stata（Elitza Mileva） tsset ctry_dum year ssc install xtabond2,replace * Dynamic panel-data estimation, one-step difference GMM // * gmm( ) lists the endogenous var // * lag (2 2) instruct to use only the second lag of the endogenous variables as instruments // * iv ( ) lists all strictly exogenous variables (l.growth, uncert, tot, dev_m2) as well as the additional instrumental variables (fin_integr, trans_index, flows_eeca), which are not part of equation (1) and, therefore, are not listed before the comma in the Stata command . // * nolevel (or noleveleq) tells Stata to apply the difference GMM estimator. By default xtabond2 will apply the system GMM, if you dont specify nolevel. // * small tells Stata to use the small-sample adjustment and report t - instead of z-statistics and the Wald chi-squared test instead of the F test. // * twostep specifies that the two-step estimator is calculated instead of the default one-step. In two-step estimation, the standard covariance matrix is robust to panel-specific autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity, but the standard errors are downward biased. Use twostep robust to get the finite-sample corrected two-step covariance matrix. // * robust specifies that the resulting standard errors are consistent with panel-specific autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity in one-step estimation. xtabond2 inv l.inv fdi loans portfolio l.growth uncert tot dev_m2, gmm (inv fdi loans portfolio, lag (2 2)) iv(fin_integr trans_index flows_eeca l.growth uncert tot dev_m2) nolevel small * Dynamic panel-data estimation, one-step system GMM // * equation () sub-option, which specifies which equation should use the instruments: first-difference only ( equation (diff) ) or levels only ( equation (level) ). The default is both equations. xtabond2 inv l.inv fdi loans portfolio l.growth uncert tot dev_m2, gmm (inv fdi loans portfolio, lag (3 3)) iv(fin_integr trans_index flows_eeca l.growth uncert tot dev_m2) small noconst
Stata: Unbalanced to Balanced 将非平行面板转换为平行面板的命令 :xtbalance http://blog.cnfol.com/arlion/article/1183850.html 使用范例： xtbalance , range(1998 2005) 下载解压后存放到 personal 文件夹下即可。也可以放到其他的文件夹中，但需要采用 adopath + 命令指定文件夹的路径。 帮助文件： --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- help for xtbalance version1.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trans the dataset into balance Panel Data xtbalance, range(numlist) You must tsset your data before using xtbalance; see help tsset. Description： xtbalance Trans the dataset into balance Panel Data with sample range specified by option range . Options ： range(numlist) specifies sample range to be transfored.numlist must be two integers and specified in ascending order. Examples: . help xtbalance . xtbalance, range(1998 2005) For problems and suggestions login my blog http://blog.cnfol.com/arlion Author: Yu-Jun Lian, Jinhe Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China. ================== FAQ: 应对安装中可能出现的问题，方法如下： 不知怎么回事，照您的方法做还是不能在 STATA9.0 添加 xtbalance 。真是苦恼！ 以下为 blog 主人的回复： 执行如下命令再运行 xtbalance ， try 一下 adopath + D:\stata9\ado\personal 以下为 blog 主人的回复： 不知道你的 STATA 中是否设定了 profile.do 文件，如果没有，可以设一个。它的作用是把一些基本的设定定义好，在每次运行 STATA 时自动执行。 设定方法：把下面的代码粘贴到 do 文件编辑器中，保存到 D:\stata9 中，名称为 profile.do 。当然，你也可以根据自己的需要添加或删除命令。 adopath + D:\stata9\ado\personal adopath + D:\stata9\ado\personal\invt adopath + D:\stata9\ado\personal\update2 //adopath + D:\statawd\chung //adopath + D:\statawd\mine local fn = subinstr(`c(current_time)',:,,2) log using d:\stata9\ado\do\s`fn'.log, text replace cmdlog using d:\stata9\ado\do\c`fn'.log, replace sysdir set PLUS D:\stata9\ado\plus sysdir set OLDPLACE D:\ado sysdir set PERSONAL D:\stata9\ado\personal set matsize 2000 set more off,perma cd d:\stata9\ado\personal 下面的命令可保持时间跨度不变，将 unbalance 转化为 balance ： tsset firm year,yearly xtdes by firm: gen obs=_N drop if obsr(max) xtbalance_ado
标签: panel
