2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
132
1
4

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 193 publications
(137 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
132
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…These results suggest that, due to unequal sampling size, an average of 78 % of the workers can be correctly classified by chance. As suggested by Kovarovic et al (2011) and from the results obtained in the LDA on balanced groups (bLDA , Table III), this high random chance baseline for workers might have influenced the misclassification of the three haploid males to this larger group. In any cases, cross-validated accuracy in the LDA on original data was always better than chance.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These results suggest that, due to unequal sampling size, an average of 78 % of the workers can be correctly classified by chance. As suggested by Kovarovic et al (2011) and from the results obtained in the LDA on balanced groups (bLDA , Table III), this high random chance baseline for workers might have influenced the misclassification of the three haploid males to this larger group. In any cases, cross-validated accuracy in the LDA on original data was always better than chance.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Following Kovarovic et al (2011) and Evin et al (2013), potential bias due to heterogeneous sample sizes and number of predictors has to be taken into account in assessing the robustness of cross-validation results. As our sampling involved groups of heterogeneous size (i.e., many more worker specimens), we tested the potential effect of our sampling on the HR results.…”
Section: Sensitivity To the Heterogeneous Sample Size And Number Of Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variables selected by DFA models had F value with p > 0.05; variables removed had p < 0.10. Efficacy of discriminant functions in categorizing fossil taxa was assessed using jack-knife cross validation classification rate (Kovarovic et al 2011). The software IBM SPSS statistics version 23 was employed to generate DFA models.…”
Section: Paleobiological Predictionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One indication of the accuracy of predictions made by the DFA is the probability of each case"s membership in the group to which it is assigned (e.g., Hertel, 1995;DeGusta and Vrba, 2003;Kovarovic et al, 2011). When the DFA model assigns a specimen, it generates probabilities based on Mahalanobis distances from each group centroid, and assigns it to the group for which its probability of membership is highest.…”
Section: Dfa Of Modern Astragalimentioning
confidence: 99%