Closed ebuhle closed 1 year ago
@ebuhle, yes: I updated the juvenile data file today and changed the "structure" of the hatchery outplants. I was imagining we would go over these details tomorrow. In short, adults that are collected for the Grays River Hatchery are ultimately used to produced eggs/fry that are outplanted multiple locations. The previous structure of the data did not capture this nuance. Nothing about the Duncan data changed except the wording of the "Location" and "Origin" are specified.
Got it, thanks. It does seem like something must have changed about Duncan Channel
because I haven't used origin
at all in processing the juvenile data and I never got these duplicate pop / year cases before, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the wording. In any case, I'll just add a filter for Wild
-only for now.
Right, the Duncan Channel data did change (slightly), too.
Here's an example of the structure of the juvenile data prior to today:
And here's an example of the updated structure I implemented today (subject to change with your input):
As you can see, the "wild" juvenile data hasn't changed at all. However, the hatchery data has changed in three ways:
Ahh, OK, that all makes sense. Thanks for laying it out, and sorry if I pre-empted our conversation tomorrow in my eagerness to re-fit the models today.
Hi @kalebentley, another question about a raw data update that breaks the data-processing code. I eventually traced this one back to the juvenile abundance data, specifically the fact that the new file contains multiple rows per year for
Grays MS
2008-2021 andDuncan Channel
2003-2021. Below is the relevant chunk ofjuv_data
, as constructed here (note that the file name in that version is out of date b/c I haven't pushed changes yet). No other pops / years have duplicate rows. It looks like the extra rows are due to distinguishing between wild and hatcheryorigin
. I'm guessing these may have been added in preparation for modeling hatchery releases and returns, but I haven't cross-checked the new raw data file with the previous one to confirm that the old entries correspond to only the rows withorigin == "Wild"
. Is that correct? If so, it should be easy enough to add that as a filter when constructingjuv_data_incl
.