[Babase] Dupe Cenids in DEMOG

Karl O. Pinc babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:05:07 +0000


On 08/23/2005 02:43:23 PM, Catherine Markham wrote:
> Karl,
> 
> Leah forwarded the following conversion error to me:
> 
> > 2.    DEMOG    Cenid = 1673602, 1676301
> >
> > There are two entries for these cenid’s.
> 
> I looked into these and here's my best guess at what went wrong: the  
> "double" cenids reference two separate demography notes that match  
> with regard to individual baboon, group, and date - the only  
> difference is the reference group.  For example, the "dupe" cenids  
> for 1673602 both place Icarus in Viola's group in 5 February 2001,  
> but the reference for  one of these demography notes is Viola's group  
> (with a note reading "ICA Joins Viva's today, seen consorting with  
> VET; last seen with Nyayo's;") and one is Nyayo's group (with a note  
> reading "ICA missing from Nyayo's").
> 
> Also, in both cases there was an actual census done that day on the  
> study group that the demography note places the baboon in (CENSUS row  
> has status = C and cen = T) and in the other reference group (CENSUS  
> row has status = A and cen = T).  For example, ICA was marked present  
> on the group census for Viola's group on 5 February 2001 and absent  
> that day for the group census for Nyayo's group.  A "present" group  
> placement for him that day was essentially entered in triplicate (2  
> demography notes plus 1 group census).
> 
> So these dupes could just be fluke, but I wanted to err on the side  
> of caution and give you a summary of what I was able to track down.   
> My question is whether or not this highlights something we should  
> look into with valdemog - possibly a complication that happens with  
> redundant demog note info?  Or maybe this is something you have  
> corrected in more recent versions of the validation program for  
> demography notes?

I would not think that this has been corrected as I don't recall
making any changes to valdemog, but I could have.  You could
look at the top of the program which should have a record of all
changes made.

Anyhow, the new system clearly catches the error or it wouldn't
have spit out a problem during the conversion.

> 
> Thanks,
> Catherine
> 
> P.S. In terms of the "short-term" fix and correcting the problem for  
> these 2 particular cenids, I think I'm all set: in each case, I'm  
> going to (1) combine the note info from the two separate demography  
> notes into a single note, (2) delete the duplicate demography note,  
> and (3) run reinterp on the baboon.  I doubt the last step is  
> necessary since both demography notes place the individual in the  
> same group, but I want to make sure none of the changes to DEMOG  
> inadvertently alter MEMBERS. Please let me know if this doesn't sound  
> like a good plan.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Karl <kop@meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein