[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