You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
First, I would like to congratulate you on the package and for the initiative. I leave two comments/questions.
Suggested text change inDemoKin/vignettes/Reference_TwoSex.Rmd: At line 37 "female fertility" is repeated. I imagine the first mention is related to "male fertility".
[Question] About approaches for using the two-sex model inDemoKin: based on the results of the accuracy assessment between the approximations suggested by Caswell (2022) and estimates generated with the data for each sex, it seems possible to use the approximations in a scenario where there is no data by sex. However, in the presence of reliable mortality data by sex -- as is more common -- and the absence of male fertility data, what do you think of the possibility of combining the approaches suggested in DemoKin/vignettes/Reference_TwoSex.Rmd as an adaptation to Caswell's (2022) androgynous approach? For example, I used, for exploratory analysis purposes, male mortality and, instead of using also male fertility, in a "hypothetical" scenario of its non-existence, I used female fertility -- which would be the same as assuming the GKP factors, as suggested by Caswell (2022).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @thiagocalm. You´re welcome, thanks for the feedbacks to improve it, well apreciated.
I´ll correct that soon.
You are right. Using male survival will do for example that ego has fewer living parents at oldest ages, as you show in your exercise. This kind of exercise are good also for decompose sex gap in kin availability, testing scenarios with sex-specific mortality or fertility.
As a final note, consider also that the vignette don´t include as input observed distribution of parents by age, so stable assumption is used with female pattern, which makes younger fathers for ego that should have in average.
Hello @IvanWilli. Thanks for your response. And, you're right, I forgot the underlying female-pattern assumption for parent age distribution in the vignette example. This can affect the results and, maybe, even can be decomposed as well.
First, I would like to congratulate you on the package and for the initiative. I leave two comments/questions.
Suggested text change in
DemoKin/vignettes/Reference_TwoSex.Rmd
: At line 37 "female fertility" is repeated. I imagine the first mention is related to "male fertility".[Question] About approaches for using the two-sex model in
DemoKin
: based on the results of the accuracy assessment between the approximations suggested by Caswell (2022) and estimates generated with the data for each sex, it seems possible to use the approximations in a scenario where there is no data by sex. However, in the presence of reliable mortality data by sex -- as is more common -- and the absence of male fertility data, what do you think of the possibility of combining the approaches suggested inDemoKin/vignettes/Reference_TwoSex.Rmd
as an adaptation to Caswell's (2022) androgynous approach? For example, I used, for exploratory analysis purposes, male mortality and, instead of using also male fertility, in a "hypothetical" scenario of its non-existence, I used female fertility -- which would be the same as assuming the GKP factors, as suggested by Caswell (2022).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: