[Babase] One user's suggestion on rank data
Russ Van Horn
rvanhorn at duke.edu
Thu Oct 12 17:43:53 EDT 2006
Hello all,
Thanks for your thoughts, Jeanne. I agree that a single sample size
associated with a particular individual's rank wouldn't convey the
full context of that individual's rank. I guess I'd assumed that
anyone who wanted to evaluate the rank data would compare sample
sizes across individuals within a month, or across months, etc., but
that might not be a valid assumption. That said, I do think some
information could be gleaned from even a raw count of the observed
interactions, although the information would differ across sample
sizes. As an extreme example, suppose there are seven adult males
ranked during one month. Knowing that baboon Larry was observed
participating in 120 agonisms during that month wouldn't tell a user
how those agonisms were distributed across the other baboons (e.g.,
Larry might have been seen in 2 agonistic interactions with Curly,
and 118 agonistic interactions with Moe, or Larry might have been
seen in 20 interactions with each of the six other adult male
baboons). However, knowing that Curly was seen in only two agonistic
encounters during the month would allow the user to infer that Curly
could not have been seen in agonisms with all of the other six adult
males, and that inference might influence the use of Curly's rank.
Perhaps, then, users might benefit from assessing three numbers
associated with each individual's rank: the number of observed
agonisms involving that individual (e.g., for Larry in the example
above, n=120), the number of individuals with which the 'focal'
individual was observed in agonistic encounters (e.g., in the first
scenario above for Larry, n=2), and the total number of individuals
with that rank type during that time period (e.g., in the example
above, n=7).
I agree that developing a set of criteria and measures of rank
uncertainty would be challenging, and that in any case it might make
sense for those criteria to vary depending on the project at hand. I
hadn't realized that the matrices for each month are in BABASE. Upon
reflection, I think having access to the monthly matrices would allow
users to evaluate the sample size used in determining an individual's
rank within the context of the sample sizes of the other individuals;
would it be possible to construct links/relations in the database
from the ranks back to the monthly matrices? Again, I'm not that
familiar with database construction, but if the ranker program is
being modified then perhaps this is an appropriate time to consider
this option.
Cheers,
Russ
>Hi Russ,
>Thanks for the suggestion based on your perspective as a user of the
>ranks tables. Ranks are our most derived data in BABASE. What one
>would consider the raw data are the matrices for each month, which are
>also in BABASE, and those are what someone might like to take the time
>to work with in situations as you describe, not a trivial project! No
>single number would be useable as the sample size in determing any
>individual's rank, to a considerable extent because it depends on sample
>sizes of all other individuals as well, so one would probably want to
>develop a set of criteria and metrices to use to create some sort of
>uncertainty measure, probably one that would depend on the project at
>hand.
--
......................................................................................................
R. C. Van Horn, Ph.D.
Research Associate
Department of Biology
Box 90338 phone: 919-660-7297, 660-7306
Duke University email: rvanhorn at duke.edu
Durham, NC 27708-0338 web: http://www.duke.edu/~rvanhorn
........................................................................................................
More information about the Babase
mailing list