[Babase] statdate questions
Jeanne Altmann
babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:59:40 -0400
just a quick answer on the first two points,
j
At 09:25 AM 9/11/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Just to make sure I'm understanding right, i think Daphne is suggesting
>that, for the short term, we use the first confirmed sighting of the
>infant as a statdate for the infant, and then work towards filling in gaps
>and using last confirmed sighting as statdate later. Is this right?
right
>If so i think it is a good solution --- except that it looks as though
>Daphne has already done a lot of the work towards the second goal and so
>maybe this is the time to just pursue that. However, I am not on the
>ground there so i definitely can not make that decision, it is just a
>suggestion based on the detailed info Daphne has already dug up.
She did a bit just on these few, but we agreed that it would take a lot
more time to actually do this for Proton's and Lodge, not good timing now.
>So, it is OK with me to use, for the short term, first confirmed sighting,
>and work toward last confirmed sighting after we clean up the data more.
>It does seem as though we need Steph to look at SCI5 in originals right
>away though, yes?
>
>Is the proposal also that we wait until later to add a bstatus? I don't
>have a sense of how much effort it is to decide a bstatus but perhaps that
>could be added now? Not a decision, just a suggestion, you folks with more
>info about the time it will take should make that decision.
>
>It's an interesting suggestion to add a status code for "status unknown".
>I haven't thought about this much. Truth is that it is really probably two
>categories, one for males that disapppear temporariliy or permanetly, and
>the other for animals that we lost track of for reasons other than their
>own movements. I would be in favor of adding these if everyone else agrees
>to Daphne's suggestion, I like this, but the question is as always,
>implementation rather than just coming up with the code. Is this the right
>time to implement another one?
>
>All for now,
>Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Sorry to not respond earlier - I've been immersed in matrices. Digging
>>into this unearthed many related issues, as usual. But in general I
>>think using the last confirmed presence is better than using the mom's
>>statdate. In addition to Susan's point that the kids may have
>>disappeared before the mom's statdate, there is the issue that some of
>>these moms still get censused on the occasional Other Group Censuses, and
>>so have quite recent statdates (see SCI). Also, in one case (CAS1), the
>>mom's statdate is actually before the kid's estimated birthdate (but see
>>below).
>>
>>I think we generally can use last confirmed presence for the Lodge
>>infants. In the sporadic demography info from the end of 97 and early
>>98, there seems to be some information on their presence. On the sexskin
>>sheets from late 97, JA has notes for REM, RAH, and BIN saying
>>"birth?". I think this is because there are numbered footnotes below (as
>>if there was a repro note), but there are no corresponding repro
>>notes. Steph, could you check for originals there? At the bottom of the
>>census sheet, there are first letters for what I think must be the new
>>infants, with a mom's sname scribbled in the margin. It's hard for me to
>>read the snames on our xeroxes, but I think the ones we're concerned with
>>are there. If you find those repro notes, Steph, check the note for BIN
>>- BIN11 has a birthdate in Biograph of Sep 97 (I think b/c of Jeanne's
>>"birth?" note), but an infant of Binti's first shows up on the census in
>>Apr 98.
>>
>>The ones from Proton's are a little trickier. CAS1 has a birth date in
>>Biograph of 20 Jun 93, but her mom's statdate is 11 Jun 93 (we obviously
>>do not want to use mom's stadate in this case). HOWEVER, there is more
>>information on both CAS and the infant than is reflected in
>>Biograph. There was an 8 month gap in any censuses of Proton's (from Jun
>>93 to Feb 94), and I think the info in Biograph only reflects the info
>>through 93. I think CAS1's birthdate in Biograph was calculated from the
>>conception date - she is not directly noted until Feb 94 (where she is
>>given a name and sexed, none of which is in Biograph). This infant is
>>censused in Proton's through 94.
>>
>>SCI5 has a birthdate of 14Aug 93 (also during the gap), and is not
>>mentioned in the next notes of Feb 94 (when 3 other infants are described
>>in detail). I think this birthdate must be estimated from the conception
>>date, but JA has a "Z?" for SCI's pregnancy in Feb 93. As far as I can
>>tell, we don't even know if this was a live birth. JA thought the
>>presence of the infant must have been mentioned in Other Group Notes, or
>>something, but I can't find any record of it. SCI starts cycling again
>>in Apr 94. Should this pregnancy even be in Biograph if we don't know
>>the outcome? Steph, did you find any other record of this infant? If we
>>do keep it in Biograph, I don't know what to use as a statdate...
>>
>>Jeanne and I talked about this briefly, and there clearly needs to be
>>some cleaning up of data from the period after Proton's and Lodge stopped
>>being monitored regularly. Now that we have demography notes, the
>>presence data can be updated as the current Other Group Censuses are
>>done, and the statdates would get updated automatically. (Steph, I know
>>that Karen started entering some of the old Other Group Census info, but
>>I don't know when she started and if she included Lodge and
>>Proton's). And there is clearly more info on names and sexes of infants
>>that can be added.
>>
>>But this is a longer term solution, and we need to decide what to do with
>>these infants' statdates for the conversion. JA suggested using the
>>first direct observation of the infants as a statdate for now, until we
>>get to the longer-term adding of info later. Thoughts? This obviously
>>wouldn't be possible for SCI5.
>>
>>None of these infants has anything for Bstatus, even though many of their
>>birthdates were estimated.
>>
>>Jeanne suggested using a status code for these animals that we use for
>>males when we don't know if they are alive or dead, but we really don't
>>have such a status code. 2 is suspected dead, and 3 is missing, which to
>>me suggests a confirmed absence rather than just not knowing. Currently
>>if a male disappears, he gets put in group 9 (unknown) in Members
>>(through demog notes), but nothing happens to his status - it stays blank
>>(which is equivalent to alive). We basically haven't been using status
>>codes 2 and 3. Do we leave these guys with a blank status code? Do we
>>need a new status code?
>>
>>Well, that's plenty to chew on. Let me know if questions.
>>Daphne
>>
>>
>>
>>Jeanne Altmann wrote:
>>
>>>sorry to be slow on this;
>>>I think we need to go with last confirmed presence and be sure that we
>>>use the status code that we use for males when we really just don't know
>>>whether they are alive or dead,
>>>jeanne
>>>
>>>At 08:46 AM 9/9/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steph, this makes sense.... but, the only problem with taking mother's
>>>>statdate is that in some cases the kid may have died/disappeared before
>>>>the mother's statdate. in principle i think it is fine to use mother's
>>>>statdate if there is no other info but we shouldn't do that in cases
>>>>where the kid disappeared if we can help it.
>>>>
>>>>S
>>>>
>>>>>There are 9 animals for which we have this problem. I think the only
>>>>>problem with looking at the last confirmed presence is that it will
>>>>>likely be different from other lodge group members statdates (for
>>>>>example the moms). Perhaps we should just go with whatever moms
>>>>>statdate is listed as? Daphne, any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-s
>>>>>
>>>>>--On Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:29 AM +0300 Susan Alberts
>>>>><alberts@duke.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a sticky problem. One suggestion (not a decision, just a
>>>>>>suggestion, others should provide input) is that you check in the
>>>>>>original data sheets, to see when the kid in question was last confirmed
>>>>>>present, and then entering a manual stat date. For some kids the mom's
>>>>>>statdate might provide a clue. How many are there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi again,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Statdates - we have several blank statdates. 2 are from Proton's
>>>>>>>group and the others are lodge group. They are from when we stopped
>>>>>>>seeing them much. So, what we have is the knowledge that a
>>>>>>>particular female had an infant, usually we couldn't tell the sex,
>>>>>>>and then we haven't properly censused the groups again. I'm
>>>>>>>guessing that they are missing statdates because these kids weren't
>>>>>>>really named and so might not have been on the computer census
>>>>>>>sheets for the update (hence statdate not getting automatically
>>>>>>>generated). What to do? Shall I go for a manual entry? If so, what
>>>>>>>should I use as a cut off date?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>please stay tuned for my next question...i can feel it coming...
>>>>>>>-steph
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham
>>>>>>NC 27708
>>>>>>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338,
>>>>Durham NC 27708
>>>>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Babase mailing list
>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Babase mailing list
>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham
>NC 27708
>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>_______________________________________________
>Babase mailing list
>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase