On Tuesday 25 May 2010, Hailiang Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Have seen the real-space correlation used widely judging the map quality.
> Generally or empirically, in order to say an map (area) has "good"
> quality, how large should the real space correlation coefficient be?
I do not think that the real space correlation coefficient is a measure
of map quality per se. You could have an excellent experimental map
but a lousy model and hence a poor correlation coefficient.
Ethan
> Say,
> is 0.8 good enough on a residue base? Any references about this will be
> greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best Regards, Hailiang
>
