 |
 |
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 >