[Babase] statdate questions

Jeanne Altmann babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:59:40 -0400


just a quick answer on the first two points,
j

At 09:25 AM 9/11/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Just to make sure I'm understanding right, i think Daphne is suggesting 
>that, for the short term, we use the first confirmed sighting of the 
>infant as a statdate for the infant, and then work towards filling in gaps 
>and using last confirmed sighting as statdate later. Is this right?

right

>If so i think it is a good solution --- except that it looks as though 
>Daphne has already done a lot of the work towards the second goal and so 
>maybe this is the time to just pursue that. However, I am not on the 
>ground there so i definitely can not make that decision, it is just a 
>suggestion based on the detailed info Daphne has already dug up.

She did a bit just on these few, but we agreed that it would take a lot 
more time to actually do this for Proton's and Lodge, not good timing now.

>So, it is OK with me to use, for the short term, first confirmed sighting, 
>and work toward last confirmed sighting after we clean up the data more. 
>It does seem as though we need Steph to look at SCI5 in originals right 
>away though, yes?
>
>Is the proposal also that we wait until later to add a bstatus? I don't 
>have a sense of how much effort it is to decide a bstatus but perhaps that 
>could be added now? Not a decision, just a suggestion, you folks with more 
>info about the time it will take should make that decision.
>
>It's an interesting suggestion to add a status code for "status unknown". 
>I haven't thought about this much. Truth is that it is really probably two 
>categories, one for males that disapppear temporariliy or permanetly, and 
>the other for animals that we lost track of for reasons other than their 
>own movements. I would be in favor of adding these if everyone else agrees 
>to Daphne's suggestion, I like this, but the question is as always, 
>implementation rather than just coming up with the code. Is this the right 
>time to implement another one?
>
>All for now,
>Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Sorry to not respond earlier - I've been immersed in matrices. Digging 
>>into this unearthed many related issues, as usual.  But in general I 
>>think using the last confirmed presence is better than using the mom's 
>>statdate.  In addition to Susan's point that the kids may have 
>>disappeared before the mom's statdate, there is the issue that some of 
>>these moms still get censused on the occasional Other Group Censuses, and 
>>so have quite recent statdates (see SCI). Also, in one case (CAS1), the 
>>mom's statdate is actually before the kid's estimated birthdate (but see 
>>below).
>>
>>I think we generally can use last confirmed presence for the Lodge 
>>infants.  In the sporadic demography info from the end of 97 and early 
>>98, there seems to be some information on their presence.  On the sexskin 
>>sheets from late 97, JA has notes for REM, RAH, and BIN saying 
>>"birth?".  I think this is because there are numbered footnotes below (as 
>>if there was a repro note), but there are no corresponding repro 
>>notes.  Steph, could you check for originals there?  At the bottom of the 
>>census sheet, there are first letters for what I think must be the new 
>>infants, with a mom's sname scribbled in the margin.  It's hard for me to 
>>read the snames on our xeroxes, but I think the ones we're concerned with 
>>are there.  If you find those repro notes, Steph, check the note for BIN 
>>- BIN11 has a birthdate in Biograph of Sep 97 (I think b/c of Jeanne's 
>>"birth?" note), but an infant of Binti's first shows up on the census in 
>>Apr 98.
>>
>>The ones from Proton's are a little trickier.  CAS1 has a birth date in 
>>Biograph of 20 Jun 93, but her mom's statdate is 11 Jun 93 (we obviously 
>>do not want to use mom's stadate in this case).  HOWEVER, there is more 
>>information on both CAS and the infant than is reflected in 
>>Biograph.  There was an 8 month gap in any censuses of Proton's (from Jun 
>>93 to Feb 94), and I think the info in Biograph only reflects the info 
>>through 93.  I think CAS1's birthdate in Biograph was calculated from the 
>>conception date - she is not directly noted until Feb 94 (where she is 
>>given a name and sexed, none of which is in Biograph).  This infant is 
>>censused in Proton's through 94.
>>
>>SCI5 has a birthdate of 14Aug 93 (also during the gap), and is not 
>>mentioned in the next notes of Feb 94 (when 3 other infants are described 
>>in detail).  I think this birthdate must be estimated from the conception 
>>date, but JA has a "Z?" for SCI's pregnancy in Feb 93.  As far as I can 
>>tell, we don't even know if this was a live birth.  JA thought the 
>>presence of the infant must have been mentioned in Other Group Notes, or 
>>something, but I can't find any record of it.  SCI starts cycling again 
>>in Apr 94.  Should this pregnancy even be in Biograph if we don't know 
>>the outcome?  Steph, did you find any other record of this infant?  If we 
>>do keep it in Biograph, I don't know what to use as a statdate...
>>
>>Jeanne and I talked about this briefly, and there clearly needs to be 
>>some cleaning up of data from the period after Proton's and Lodge stopped 
>>being monitored regularly.  Now that we have demography notes, the 
>>presence data can be updated as the current Other Group Censuses are 
>>done, and the statdates would get updated automatically.  (Steph, I know 
>>that Karen started entering some of the old Other Group Census info, but 
>>I don't know when she started and if she included Lodge and 
>>Proton's).  And there is clearly more info on names and sexes of infants 
>>that can be added.
>>
>>But this is a longer term solution, and we need to decide what to do with 
>>these infants' statdates for the conversion.  JA suggested using the 
>>first direct observation of the infants as a statdate for now, until we 
>>get to the longer-term adding of info later. Thoughts?  This obviously 
>>wouldn't be possible for SCI5.
>>
>>None of these infants has anything for Bstatus, even though many of their 
>>birthdates were estimated.
>>
>>Jeanne suggested using a status code for these animals that we use for 
>>males when we don't know if they are alive or dead, but we really don't 
>>have such a status code.  2 is suspected dead, and 3 is missing, which to 
>>me suggests a confirmed absence rather than just not knowing.  Currently 
>>if a male disappears, he gets put in group 9 (unknown) in Members 
>>(through demog notes), but nothing happens to his status - it stays blank 
>>(which is equivalent to alive).  We basically haven't been using status 
>>codes 2 and 3.  Do we leave these guys with a blank status code?  Do we 
>>need a new status code?
>>
>>Well, that's plenty to chew on.  Let me know if questions.
>>Daphne
>>
>>
>>
>>Jeanne Altmann wrote:
>>
>>>sorry to be slow on this;
>>>I think we need to go with last confirmed presence and be sure that we 
>>>use the status code that we use for males when we really just don't know 
>>>whether they are alive or dead,
>>>jeanne
>>>
>>>At 08:46 AM 9/9/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steph, this makes sense.... but, the only problem with taking mother's 
>>>>statdate is that in some cases the kid may have died/disappeared before 
>>>>the mother's statdate. in principle i think it is fine to use mother's 
>>>>statdate if there is no other info but we shouldn't do that in cases 
>>>>where the kid disappeared if we can help it.
>>>>
>>>>S
>>>>
>>>>>There are 9 animals for which we have this problem.  I think the only 
>>>>>problem with looking at the last confirmed presence is that it will 
>>>>>likely be different from other lodge group members statdates (for 
>>>>>example the moms).  Perhaps we should just go with whatever moms 
>>>>>statdate is listed as? Daphne, any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-s
>>>>>
>>>>>--On Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:29 AM +0300 Susan Alberts 
>>>>><alberts@duke.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a sticky problem. One suggestion (not a decision, just a
>>>>>>suggestion, others should provide input) is that you check in the
>>>>>>original data sheets, to see when the kid in question was last confirmed
>>>>>>present, and then entering a manual stat date. For some kids the mom's
>>>>>>statdate might provide a clue. How many are there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi again,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Statdates - we have several blank statdates.  2 are from Proton's
>>>>>>>group and the others are lodge group.  They are from when we stopped
>>>>>>>seeing them much. So, what we have is the knowledge that a
>>>>>>>particular female had an infant, usually we couldn't tell the sex,
>>>>>>>and then we haven't properly censused the groups again.  I'm
>>>>>>>guessing that they are missing statdates because these kids weren't
>>>>>>>really named and so might not have been on the computer census
>>>>>>>sheets for the update (hence statdate not getting automatically
>>>>>>>generated). What to do? Shall I go for a manual entry? If so, what
>>>>>>>should I use as a cut off date?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>please stay tuned for my next question...i can feel it coming...
>>>>>>>-steph
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham
>>>>>>NC 27708
>>>>>>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, 
>>>>Durham NC 27708
>>>>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Babase mailing list
>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Babase mailing list
>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham 
>NC 27708
>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>_______________________________________________
>Babase mailing list
>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase