-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: tpsRelw v. 1.45 and v.1.46
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 09:53:01 -0800 (PST)
From: F. James Rohlf <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: Stony Brook University
To: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]>
The change from 1.45 to 1.46 was intended to just fix a problem that
could result in a division by zero when there were many semilandmarks
close together. Please write to me directly with more information. Most
useful would be sample files that illustrate the problem.
------------------------
F. James Rohlf, Distinguished Professor
Ecology & Evolution, Stony Brook University
www: http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/rohlf
-----Original Message-----
From: morphmet [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:08 AM
To: morphmet
Subject: tpsRelw v. 1.45 and v.1.46
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: tpsRelw v. 1.45 and v.1.46
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:29:40 -0800 (PST)
From: thimacek <[email protected]>
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 copy 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 S�o Paulo
Se��o de Mastozoologia
Avenida Nazar�, 481, Ipiranga, S�o 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: <[email protected]>
>
>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
