Loading, processing and initial data exploration for historical and contemporary New England phenology data.
A first run of looking at interviewer effects in the Chacobo dataset. Outcome – in general, interviewer DOES affect what plants and uses people report, AND in repeat interviews, some interviewers (e.g. BCM) "pull" the answers of informants closer to what they themselves report. HOWEVER, this effect doesn't spoil the data – interviewers who report many plants or uses themselves aren't any more likely to elicit many plants / uses from informants, AND even the interviewers who are most "magnetic" in eliciting answers similar to their own knowledge still elicit MANY plants, uses, and ESPECIALLY plant-use combinations that are novel to them (ie. that they did not report).
Code to read the Palmer Drought Severity Index as a data frame. Note, first I download and delete the first line (I'm sure there's a more efficient way to do this)