Dear Carlo. Regarding yours of Tue, 13 Aug 2019 21:59:18 -0500 (CDT):
The way I like to put it is that EXAFS works best if you already know most of
the answer. You need to have a specific question,
such as 'is there antisite disorder?' or 'Are there edge-sharing octahedra?',
or 'Which of three structures does this most resemble?'.
I love the idea of blind analysis comparison.
Sincerely,
Matthew Marcus
The answer you get will depend somewhat on the assumptions you make. if you
are truly provided with data and no other information about the sample, then
the job is challenging. If you know something about the sample that can help
you start in a particular direction then the two analyses have a better chance
of converging but it still depends on how you decide to approach the structural
model.
You also need to think about what question you are trying to answer. If you
have a specific goal in mind, then you may choose a different model than the
individual who is seeking the answer to a different question.
The most likely way to approach this problem is to both have the same
background information about the sample(s) and to mutually determine what
question you are trying to answer.
Cheers,
Carlo
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Mike Massey wrote:
I'm the dumb one. But it's an interesting question, and gets perhaps to the
heart of the issue: to what extent does the smartness of the analyst, or their
experience, or the fitting procedures used, or a butterfly flapping its wings
in Micronesia, impact the results?
For the sake of argument, can two equally smart and experienced analysts
working on fitting the same EXAFS spectra be expected to reach similar
conclusions? I guess we'll find out.
Another colleague once said something like, "EXAFS is great: you publish a paper,
then later you publish another paper re-analyzing the same data." Of course, he's a
strictly computational guy, so I'm not sure he necessarily has standing to
criticize...(Good-natured sarcasm font...)
On Aug 13, 2019, at 6:43 PM, Anatoly Frenkel <anatoly.fren...@stonybrook.edu>
wrote:
Are they equally smart?
Anatoly
On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:39 PM, Mike Massey <mmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I'm curious, has anyone ever tried turning two analysts loose on the same
unknown EXAFS spectrum to see if their fits come out with similar conclusions?
If you have tried it, how did it work out? Were the conclusions indeed similar?
If not, why not, and what did you end up doing about it?
I was talking with a colleague today about our plans for data analysis, and we
settled on this approach (since there are two interested parties willing to try
to fit a series of unknown EXAFS datasets).
The hope is, of course, that the two analysts will independently reach similar
conclusions with similar fits and structural models, but to my mind that
outcome is by no means guaranteed. Given the (presumably) wide variation in
fitting customs and procedures, I can envision a scenario in which there are
major differences.
This got me wondering, "Has anyone tried this?" So I thought I'd ask.
Your thoughts and experiences would be welcome. Thanks!
Mike Massey
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
