[Babase] New Ranker login and misused groomings
Jeanne Altmann
altj at princeton.edu
Fri Apr 11 14:43:44 EDT 2008
I just talked to Susan: I agree that we stay with just 'A' as a single
category as we've had in Ranker all along,
jeanne
-----Original Message-----
From: babase-bounces at eeblistserv.princeton.edu
[mailto:babase-bounces at eeblistserv.princeton.edu] On Behalf Of Jeanne
Altmann
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 1:36 PM
To: The Baboon Database Project
Subject: RE: [Babase] New Ranker login and misused groomings
Sorry to be slow on this:
We have always had these three agonism types pooled for ranking.
However, if it is easy to do, there is some value in having them
separate, e.g. there might be a different relationship to hormones. So,
the question is how easy? Also, what is your thought Susan about lumping
vs separate?
jeanne
-----Original Message-----
From: babase-bounces at eeblistserv.princeton.edu
[mailto:babase-bounces at eeblistserv.princeton.edu] On Behalf Of Jun Yang
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:30 PM
To: The Baboon Database Project
Subject: Re: [Babase] New Ranker login and misused groomings
I see. That should be a very simple fix. Currently, the query that
retrieves the interactions doesn't filter out any interactions at all.
We just need to put in the appropriate filters. The questions is how
flexible we should make it though:
* We can hard-code the filter to count agonistic interactions only---I
assume the condition would be CLASS = 'A'? Or should it be ACT='AS' OR
ACT='DS' OR ACT='OS'?
* We can let user pick which subset of ACTs to include in counting
(e.g., AS+DS, AS alone, AS+DS+OS, etc.). This makes the whole thing a
bit messier but certainly would be possible.
What do you guys think?
--- Jun Y.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM, kfenn <kfenn at princeton.edu> wrote:
> Lacey Maryott wrote:
>
> > Tabby,
> >
> > At first, Susan thought it odd that that could possibly explain why
> > we
> were seeing that happen with males, but we are pretty sure it was
> occuring mostly in subadult and juvenile males who do occasionally
groom each other.
> > Lacey
> >
> > kfenn wrote:
> >
> > > I investigated this further....the source of the extra data can
> > > be
> explained if one adds the grooming data to the agonistic interactions.
> > >
> > >
> >
> One further note on the comments above: I checked and the same
> pattern also holds for the males...groomings are added to the
> interaction matrix. I ran Omo's ALM Dec 06 and Nyayo's Jan 06. The
> added interaction, ODE > AFR, is accounted for the by grooming data
> (in Dec06). SAT > TAL and COS > TAL are accounted for by the grooming
data in Jan 06.
>
> Earlier today I thought Jun had fixed this for the males but not for
> the females....but I just happened to run a matrix with no extra
grooming data.
> So the bottom line seems to be that new Ranker incorrectly adds
> grooming data to both the male and female agonism matrices.
>
> Tabby
>
> --
> Tabby Fenn
> Research Assistant
>
> Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
> 401 Guyot Hall
> Princeton University
> Princeton, NJ 08544
>
> 609 258-6898 (Ph)
> 609 258-2712 (Fx)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Babase mailing list
> Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>
_______________________________________________
Babase mailing list
Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
_______________________________________________
Babase mailing list
Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
More information about the Babase
mailing list