Fw: [Babase] Re: Request for Susan's input on SCI5 (fwd)
Amboseli Baboon Research Project
babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:35:54 +0300
In response to Karl's comments:
>
> I like the idea of a status of "fetus".
Good, the more I think about it the more I feel that it solves some problems
for us that have been hanging around for a while.
>
> ...... We would then have 4 sorts of pregnancies.
>
> 1) Ongoing pregnancies. These have no associated biograph
> row and so won't show up when you're looking at
> BIOGRAPH.Birth to determine end-of-pregnancy date.
So Status = fetus would never apply to these. In fact they have no status
until they have a biograph row, right? Which is assigned at birth or
statdate?
>
> 2) Abortions/stillbirths. On BIOGRAPH the Status is
> "dead" and the Birth = Statdate.
>
> 3) Observation abandoned during pregnancy. On BIOGRAPH
> the Status is "fetus" and the Birth = Statdate.
So if we terminate observation while mum is pregnant, it gets a row in
biograph with a birthdate = statdate and a status of fetus, and a wide
margin of error on bstatus, as with SCI5? Or what?
>
> 4) Births. On BIOGRAPH Birth != Statdate.
>
> I don't like a Status of "unknown" as it's not especially descriptive
> of the state of the unborn on the Statdate.
I agree.
>
> Whatever solution we arrive at must be able to distinguish
> these 4 cases, or ensure that case 3 never occurs.
Right, "status = fetus" solves this I think.
>
>> > 2. Delete the row for SCI5 from BIOGRAPH but keep the record in
>> > PREGS.
>
> The trouble with this approach is it makes it hard to distingush
> case 1, ongoing pregnancy, from case 3, observation abandoned.
Again, status = fetus would solve this I think.
Susan