In the DFA five
discriminant functions (DFs) were obtained.
Here we show that the three species differ significantly in their microhabitat selection, and the
discriminant function analysis showed how different species in similar habitats use separated.
As shown in table 9, the rugae shape and length contributed to the
discriminant function analysis.
When the first
discriminant function separated the BA3 and BA5 mesoregions, it formed a group with high rainfall and high V.
Table 3 shows the correlations between each discriminating factor with the standardized canonical
discriminant function. The values given in the Structure Matrix show that young and old investors are significantly different in terms of perceived savings and risk (Factor 1).
Statistically significant differences were found only in the second
discriminant function, although five of them were extracted.
Implementing the
discriminant function (DF) analysis approach yielded results with classification accuracies that ranged between 56.0 % for (D1) and (D3) parameters and 81.8 % for gonial angle (GA), the best single predictor of sex of all measurements.
Similarly, the canonical
discriminant function revealed that 84.0%, 82.0%, and 100.0% of Sasso, Kuroiler and Fulani chickens were correctly classified (Table 7).
Linear
discriminant function analysis (DFA) was executed to predict and classify each specimen to their respective populations based on their morphometric features.
Sex determination by
discriminant function analysis of the right tibia in the prehistoric population of the Canary Islands.
(2) Multivariate
discriminant function analysis was used to analyze sex differences within the skulls.
The first
discriminant function differentiates honey samples from Greece, while the second differentiates those from Egypt.