Define common set of quality constraints

[andycasey]

For "believable" stellar parameters and chemical abundances.

Some statistics of use: snr, R (correlation coefficient from the RAVE pipeline), r_chi_sq.

The same quality cut should then be applied for stars in all figures.

[keithhawkins]

Is there a new copy of the table to star looking at the combination of these parameters giving believable results?

On Sep 2, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Andy Casey notifications@github.com wrote:

For "believable" stellar parameters and chemical abundances.

Some statistics of use: snr, R (correlation coefficient from the RAVE pipeline), r_chi_sq.

The same quality cut should then be applied for stars in all figures.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/AnnieJumpCannon/RAVE/issues/6, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIDDq32sgAkq-_5WdEQjC9M8c3ruUyXoks5qmAW7gaJpZM4Jzm3x.

[andycasey]

There is (unrave-v0.7*), but it is a little complicated at the moment because I am not convinced that the main-sequence and the giant models have been joined correctly. They are joined correctly in the sense that the H-R diagram looks great, but it is clear that there are issues. For example, the results for metal-poor dwarfs are being taken from the giant model.

When I make comparison plots (e.g., to Bensby, etc) and just use the main-sequence model, then everything looks great. Similarly when I plot the galactic chemical evolution of individual abundances from the giant stars. But when using the joint model, there are systematic effects.

[andycasey]

Defined as S/N > 10 and \chi_r^2 < 3, since those constraints make all the literature comparisons look good, and there isn't much further we could go in S/N..