Topical Discussion: Difference between revisions
From canSAS
(Created page with "<big>'''Notes from General Discussion of all Topical Presentation/Discussion'''</big><br><br> __TOC__ == Notes Start here ==") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<big>'''Notes from General Discussion of all Topical Presentation/Discussion'''</big><br><br> | <big>'''Notes from canSAS 2024 General Discussion of all Topical Presentation/Discussion'''</big><br><br> | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== | == Final thoughts on these == | ||
* We should set up an Uncertainties WG | |||
* The feeling is that data corrections are nearly complete for X-rays, but some way to go for neutrons. Should expand the current | |||
* We should set up webpage for publishing ‘best practice’ for fields that are not bioSAS, but take inspiration from Jill et al’s paper. | |||
* We should encourage users to publish more details on how data were processed – amount of background subtracted for example. | |||
* Should we provide more descriptors of uncertainty with classifications (counting, systematics etc)? Relative magnitudes would allow decision over which can safely be ignored. | |||
Latest revision as of 17:55, 4 December 2024
Notes from canSAS 2024 General Discussion of all Topical Presentation/Discussion
Final thoughts on these
- We should set up an Uncertainties WG
- The feeling is that data corrections are nearly complete for X-rays, but some way to go for neutrons. Should expand the current
- We should set up webpage for publishing ‘best practice’ for fields that are not bioSAS, but take inspiration from Jill et al’s paper.
- We should encourage users to publish more details on how data were processed – amount of background subtracted for example.
- Should we provide more descriptors of uncertainty with classifications (counting, systematics etc)? Relative magnitudes would allow decision over which can safely be ignored.
