Mulitstate Open Robust Design design.data error

[claudiapenaloza]

Hello All,

I'm reworking an ORDMS model I had set up a while back in RMark (it ran fine back then but we made a mistake). I've made the following seemingly minor changes: added 5 unmonitored primary periods as columns of dots, and changed the previous "longer" time intervals with 1's for these unmonitored pp's.

Something like this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0 . . 0 0 0
0 0 0 . . 0 0 0
0 0 0 . . 0 0 0
0 0 0 . . 0 0 0
0 0 0 . . 0 0 0

We had 329 occasions (counting all secondary occasions withing primary periods), now we have 334 occasions. We had 328 intervals, now we have 333, right?

I can create the process data

Code: Select all

aves.process <- process.data(aves.data,model="ORDMS", time.interval=t.int, strata.labels=c("1","U"), begin.time=1979)

but not the design data.

Code: Select all

> aves.ddl <- make.design.data(aves.process, parameters=list(Psi=list(subtract.stratum=c("1","1"))))

When I try, I get this error:

Code: Select all

Error in rbind(design.data, add.design.data) :
  number of columns of matrices must match (see arg 2)

I can't find information on this error (other than this: http://www.phidot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2144&p=6593&hilit=number+of+columns+must+match#p6593) and I'm not sure what is going wrong here, i.e., I don't know where to start looking for the problem.
I would really appreciate some help.

Thank you,
Claudia

[jlaake]

Claudia-

The problem is that it is expecting to have at least 2 secondary occasions per primary period. It is tripping on pent at interval 20 where it encounters two simultaneous 1's. Is this allowed in MARK? I was under the impression that you always had to have 2 secondary occasions per primary - essentially a 0 between each pair of 1's. Am I wrong about that? At the least I need to add some code to flag this as an error. If what you have is allowed in MARK then I'll need to modify the design data code. --jeff

1,
1,1,1,
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
1,1,

[claudiapenaloza]

Ha! I'm not sure its allowed. I had thought about that last night when I first put the dots in for the unmonitored pp's... I wasn't sure if I needed to put a minimum number of secondary sessions or if just putting a "." for the pp would be enough.

I'll try putting two dots per unmonitored year and post my findings.

THANK YOU!
cp

[claudiapenaloza]

YES! That did the trick!
THANK YOU SO MUCH JEFF!

Cheers,
cp