[Babase] Morris (MOR) and interpolation rules in members table +
incomplete censuses!
Susan Alberts
alberts at duke.edu
Thu Aug 20 17:24:33 EDT 2009
I agree this is an excellent idea; sorry i was behind on the string.
Susan
--------------------------------------------------------
Susan Alberts, Dept of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC
27708, 919-660-7272 (Ph), 919-660-7293 (Fax)
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Niki Learn wrote:
> Incomplete census entry as it is set up now is a lot of work because
> each
> presence has to be entered as a demog note (you can imagine that
> could get
> time consuming, especially for larger groups). And you can't enter
> absences
> that way.
>
> I most like Karl's suggestion (below) - it would make entry simpler
> (incomplete censuses could be included in the regular census upload
> files)
> and I could still just ignore incomplete census data where there is no
> change in presence or absence, only including incomplete censuses
> where one
> or more individuals exhibit a change in location.
>
> Karl:
> I could also change the census upload program so that there's a way
> to mark
> "make no census row for this individual on this day".
> It'd just be another character to enter into the matrix instead of
> "0".
> Sounds quick and easy.
>
> Does this sound reasonable? (you can see more details in the last
> babase
> message I sent yesterday if needed)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: babase-bounces at eeblistserv.Princeton.EDU
> [mailto:babase-bounces at eeblistserv.Princeton.EDU] On Behalf Of Susan
> Alberts
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:05 PM
> To: The Baboon Database Project
> Subject: Re: [Babase] Morris (MOR) and interpolation rules in
> members table
> + incomplete censuses!
>
>
>> On a related question, Jeanne and Susan, we have in this update a
>> lot of incomplete census data. ....
>>
>> In the case of current data generated by Courtney (and probably
>> older data generated by others), this means that sometimes males who
>> move around a lot are verified as absent on an incomplete census day
>> though they had been present on the previous full census day (and
>> may be either present or absent on the next full census day). With
>> the way uploads work I cannot enter such incomplete census data with
>> the full census data because every individual listed in the sheet
>> must be marked either present or absent and we don't have that data
>> for every individual on those dates. I could, if desired, either
>> use a demog note to mark them as present with an unknown group (9.0)
>
> This seems like a good option in these cases. But as you noted
> earlier, we currently don't use "not here" info in demog notes. Would
> doing so require any structural or any other changes to data entry or
> babase?
>
>> or create a separate file just for incomplete census days for those
>> males that move around a lot to better capture their movements (and
>> in some cases avoid interpolation of presence with a group when we
>> know they were in fact absent). The latter method would help me
>> track the males movements between groups and wo!
>> uld probably be less prone to error than marking them as present
>> with an unknown group.
>
> I am very happy with this method but I understood that incomplete
> censuses are a huge amount of work. How often does this happen? Is it
> feasible for you to do this?
>
>> Sometimes we already know where they were because they showed up in
>> another group on or before the incomplete census day on which they
>> were marked absent but in other cases their whereabouts are unknown.
>
> So in these cases you don't need the "not here" info in the incomplete
> censuses. But, sometimes you do need it.
>
>> Please let me know if this is an issue that is worth the extra
>> trouble of creating and uploading additional data for these males.
>
> We do need the info, but I am comfortable with you deciding which of
> these two methods you propose will work better.
>
> Susan
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Niki
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karl O. Pinc [mailto:kop at meme.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 6:06 PM
>> To: The Baboon Database Project
>> Cc: Niki Learn
>> Subject: Re: [Babase] Morris (MOR) and interpolation rules in
>> members table.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There are no special interpolation rules for males. I do
>> recall some talk about it but I thought we decided against
>> making the end of the month be special in that way.
>>
>> As far as females and juveniles go, there's few problems
>> because the individuals get marked dead and this stops
>> interpolation. The other "backstop" is that interpolation
>> does not happen until "later data", either censuses noting
>> the individual present or noting them absent, is entered.
>> This keeps interpolation from making assumptions about
>> what happens after "the end of time", the last census data
>> for an individual that's still living. Dead individuals
>> can be interpolated after the last entered census
>> based on the date of death. (More on this below.)
>>
>> There are 2 ways to stop males from interpolating.
>> You could use a non-interpolating census code
>> ("manual" or some other) to record the last date
>> you want the individual in the group. At this point
>> you are manually doing what the interpolation does.
>>
>> The other way to go is to ensure that there's
>> always a subsequent absence recorded, even
>> if the individual leaves the group at the very
>> end of the month. (Vis Niki's point below.)
>> I recall quite a bit of discussion
>> about this some time ago. There can be a problem
>> for females and juveniles as well, even if they
>> do wind up marked dead. If say, a female is
>> censused present the last day of the month
>> but is absent thereafter, the female's group membership
>> should be in the unknown group if the death date
>> is long enough after the last time she
>> was censused present. For example, she
>> might be sick, and censused present on the
>> 31st of the month and then absent on the
>> first. Perhaps the 4th is assigned as
>> the death date. If the absence on the first
>> is not recorded then interpolation will place
>> the individual in the group on the first, even
>> though she was censused absent.
>>
>> I'm against Susan's proposal for "male interpolation"
>> rules for a number of reasons, but there's
>> no point in going over this right now. (Ultimately, I don't think
>> it can be reliably implemented, but that's something
>> we can determine if we want to talk further and work
>> out exactly what it is that we'd want implemented.) There was so
>> much
>> discussion regarding the import of continuing to enter
>> absences for the next month after an individual disappears
>> that it should not be hard to find in the archives.
>> The problem is more apparent with males, but
>> can crop up with females and juveniles as well
>> depending on when the censuses are taken and when
>> the death date is assigned. I thought we had something
>> about this recorded in the data entry manual....
>>
>> On 08/18/2009 02:32:49 PM, Niki Learn wrote:
>>> Karl,
>>>
>>> We have a babase puzzle for you.
>>>
>>> Jeanne, Susan, and I have been conversing over the male Morris. It
>>> all began when they were puzzled by his having a bstatus of 9 (which
>>> has impacts on Jordi's tooth abrasion data) since they were
>>> confident
>>> that he was of reasonably well-known age for an immigrant male.
>>> While
>>> investigating the bstatus issue we found some other irregularities.
>>> A
>>> couple are related to mistakes in oddball census information but one
>>> involves the interpolation rules for the members table. Please see
>>> the excerpts from the email string below and let me know what the
>>> current situation is on interpolating member presence for males
>>> (i.e.,
>>> is the 14-day rule in place for them even in study groups where
>>> censuses have been going on and the male is not marked as present or
>>> was this altered as Susan thought). I guess we'll move forward from
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Niki
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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