-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: tpsRelw v. 1.45 and v.1.46
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:19:14 -0800 (PST)
From: thimacek <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]>
Oh, I found out what was "wrong", and it was just something silly that I
hadn't noticed. It seems version 1.46 has the option of not using
uniform components even for the calculation of rws with alpha=0 as a
default, while the default for 1.45 uses them. I calculated values for
alpha=0 without using the uniform components and obtained the same
results I had in 1.46.
So, my mistake. Sorry about that!
Cheers,
Thiago
Thiago Macek G. Zahn
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Seção de Mastozoologia
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
(55)(11)2065-8105
Em 23/12/2008 12:07, *morphmet * escreveu:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: tpsRelw v. 1.45 and v.1.46
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:29:40 -0800 (PST)
From: thimacek
To: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]>
Hello friends,
I was gathering spline plots for relative warps for my data tonight
when
a strange error occurred, and kept occurring whenever I tried to save
plots even if I closed the program and reopened it. So I went to SB
site
and got the new version of tpsRelw, v.1.46. However, the relative warp
plots, and also the values of rw calculated, were all quite different
from what I had in v.1.45. I thought I had made a mistake, but I
double-checked, and had used all the same files, and the same alpha
values. I later got around to another co py of v. 1.45 and
calculated rws
and made plots again, and they're just the same I had got before (and
different from those done in v.1.46).
So I must ask, does anyone know whether there was any sort of problem
with v.1.45's calculations of relative warps? Is it possible that the
new version's got such a problem?
I'm using sliders in my data, so it's possible that the difference in
calculations only hap pens when they're used.
For now, I'm sticking with all the data I had used, but if there is
indeed some kind of problem with data handled with v.1.45, should I
re-do everything related to rws using the calculations from v. 1.46?
Thanks for the help!
Cheers,
Thiago
Thiago Macek G. Zahn
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Seção de Mastozoologia
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
(55)(11)2065-8105
Em 22/12/2008 13:26, *morphmet * escreveu:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Discriminant analysis
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:11:24 -0800 (PST)
From: andrea cardini
To: [email protected]
Dear Sarah,
there's a bug in SPSS DA. I found that out too as, when I coded my
groups
with large (>20 or 100) non consecutive numbers, I used to get an error
message saying that there was not enough memory for doing the
analysis. If
I recoded groups as you did, everything was fine and results
similar (or
identical) to those of other statistical software.
Cheers
Andrea
At 07:15 22/12/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: RE: Discriminant analysis
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:10:18 -0800 (PST)
>From: Sarah Degroot
>To: *>References: <494a8b40.3080...@morpho metrics.org>
>
>I think I figured out the problem: SPSS (both 11.0 and 15.0) was
having
>trouble with the cross-validation when the group identifiers were not
>consecutive numbers. For example, my groups were labeled 55, 181,
197,
>273, and 274. Another look at the cross-validation case-wise
statistics
>showed that the second highest group in most cases was non-existent,
>e.g. 1, 143, 127, 220. I re-numbered the groups (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and
>received a cross-validated with 84.0% correct classification, which I
>have reason to believe is about right for these data.
>FYI, those of you using SPSS.
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: morphmet [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thu 18-Dec-08 9:41 AM
>To: morphmet
>Subject: Discriminant analysis
>*>
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Discriminant analysis
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:38:39 -0800 (PST)
>From: Sarah Degroot
>To:
>
>I'm having a problem with discriminant analysis. I am using SPSS
15.0.
>With my ln-transformed or raw corolla truss data, I get correct
original
>classifications of 96.0 to 100%. Cross-validated classification
is 0.0
>to 2.7% correct. Random groups of the same data gives 54.7% correct
>originally and 20.0% correct cross-validated (which makes sense given
>that I am trying to discriminate 5 groups).
>It seems that there is some signal in the data, otherwise I'd
think the
>original classification for the random groups would be higher. But
I am
>very puzzled why the cross-validated classification of the real
groups
>is so low, at or near 0% correct, i.e. worse than random. It's like
>something is forcefully insisting on the wrong answer...
>Any idea why the cross-validated classifications are so poor?
>
>Thank you,
>sarah.degroot at cgu.edu
>
>
>
>
>--
>Replies will be sent to the list.
>For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Replies will be sent to the list.
>For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
>
>
>
--
Replies will be sent to the list.
For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
**
--
Replies will be sent to the list.
For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
--
Replies will be sent to the list.
For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
