This old message claims that / = "weighted" by s.
If counting error is significant, s will be larger for stronger reflections, which are likely to
have small I/s, so in general / > unweighted . As Werten points
out.
However this seems to be the opposite of the OP's situation, if both measur
Dear Gerard,
I disagree in two points with what you write:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:15:43 +0100, Gerard Bricogne
wrote:
...
> Much worse, in fact: that quantity (I_avg/sigI_avg) makes no sense
>whatsoever in statistical terms. It must be a relic of a quantity that may
>have seemed like a good
Ok - I have tracked down where it is coming from.
The value being reported is sum(I)/sum(sigma_I). This is not the same
as Mean(I/sigmaI) - as I interpret the later as (Sum(I/sigma))/n.
Where I comes from is the intensity_meas, intensity_meas_au, or
intensity column - whichever is present (
Dear Aline,
This is an intriguing message: by what exact piece of software was it
produced?
The notation I_avg/sigI_avg does not appear in the definition of the
closest item in the mmCIF dictionary, which would be
_reflns_shell.meanI_over_sigI_obs
that can be f
Hi Aline,
I see nothing wrong with / being 0.83
Mean((I)/sd(I)) is , which is not the same as / so you cannot
expect the numerical values to be the same (even in case the resolution shell
definition is identical), although the two values usually do not differ much.
Take for example two reflect
Hmm - no idea but perhapd=s interesting that 0.83 ~ 1.7/2
Eleanor
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 15:13, Aline Dias da Purificação <
d5ed37c6eb7b-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am currently validating a structure for deposition in the wwPDB and
> encountered the following warnin
Dear all,
I am currently validating a structure for deposition in the wwPDB and
encountered the following warning in the validation system:
Warning: Value of (I_avg/sigI_avg = 0.83) is out of range (check Io or SigIo in
SF file).
The Mean((I)/sd(I)) in the aimless log is 1.7 in the OuterShel
