Auxiliary .pdf and other files

[rainersachs]

Issue#1 contains information that helps the authors of the paper communicate with each other and with future UCB undergraduate research apprentice (URAP) classes. Some of that information may also be of interest to readers of the paper.

[rainersachs]

synergy theory starts from 1-ion Dose-Effect Relations (DERs). So in addition to NSRL data, HG data acquired at the LBL Bevalac in the years 1975-1994 is used in the present LSSR submission. But there are necessarily problems combining data sets acquired with a time gap of more than 25 years between them. The .pdf in this box gives all the 1-ion experiments the present paper uses and includes some notes about problems with the 20th century, Bevalac, LBL, Berkeley data set. 1-ion_data.pdf

[rainersachs]

I just uploaded from my computer's RStudio's sand box a suite of R scripts which is ugly but runs, has all the functionality we need for the LSSR paper, and incorporates all corrections I know of for the published input data. Henceforth this suite is the Master code for the LSSR paper: if further corrections are needed, they will be entered here and should then be used in all class members' own sandboxes. The first set of corrections will be just changing the commenting, which at the moment has mistakes, is obsolescent, and is not sufficiently informative for anyone outside the URAP class to understand. Gracie and Liyang: please download the suite and check that it runs in your sandbox and produces plots. To run, follow the instructions in WebSup, namely just source plots.R. That is the last script in a chain which calls all the other scripts. If the paper is accepted, we will add an additional suite which has exactly the same functionality but is much more elegant and is shorter. But that will be done by a newbie, and used as a way to acquaint him/her with the mouse pod's science, code, presentations, and routines.

[rainersachs]

Hi Liyang and Gracie! I just finished revising WebSup for the LSSR submission. I will upload this most recent version as a .pdf file here; if you need a .docx version instead because track changes is better in word, let me know and I will send by email.

My main concern about this latest version is that the verbal stream should flow consistently. As you are aware, the equations and the cross references of the paper to WebSup or vice versa have already been looked at often; I doubt that more than 1 or 2 minor errors can still be present in either one. But when making this most recent revision I was unpleasantly surprised to find a paragraph which did not make sense, due to some verbal mixups. I have read WebSup too often to be efficient at catching that kind of mistake -- I just keep making the same mistake over and over again. You are both in a better position. You both know all the terminology so well it no longer bothers you. You know the math and the basic ideas of the paper. But you are still sufficiently unfamiliar with WebSup that you can read it with a fresh pair of eyes. Don't read it in detail -- that would take much too long. Don't just skim it -- that would probably not enable you to catch errors in the logical flow of sentences, paragraphs, and subsections. Instead do something like the following. Make a table of contents out of the various section and subsection headings, e.g. as automated by word. Look through it for a sizable chunk that seems interesting to you. Then read through that fairly carefully and note where it is wrong, unclear, incomplete, or otherwise sub-optimal. Send me a word track changes document by email or, preferably, post them in a box below in this issue #1 thread. I think you probably will learn quite a bit if you read with your own eyes, thus with a mesoscope rather than with a microscope or a telescope. All this is strictly optional. Minor errors within WebSup that do not affect the results or conclusions of the paper will be correctable when we are asked to revise our initial submission after external reviewers have evaluated it.

WebSup_v4.pdf