[G8b_run] Analysis note for g8b review

[Volker Crede]

Mike,

I have done exactly what you mentioned in your last paragraph. Our analysis not has only a very brief summary of the photon energy correction and simply refers to the analysis note. I have also made only a few comments about the consistency checks we performed (systematics of the degree of polarization) and refer to your analysis note under discussion. Or do we have (already) a separate reference for this? We could use your presentation to the g8b group.

I certainly see the conflict of referring to an analysis note which is under review at the same time. Pulling this part out and turning it into a separate note would be beneficial for all other analyses.

Cheers,

       Volker


On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:43 PM, <dugger at jlab.org> wrote:

> Ken,
> 
> The reason that we put all of the details in the analysis note is that
> there is no formal way to have the CLAS-notes approved. I would prefer to
> have the individual CLAS-notes approved and then just reference them in
> the analysis note.
> 
> I could just make reference to the CLAS-notes but then I am just asking
> the committee to collect the individual CLAS-notes and review them
> separately. I think it is easier on the committee to have everything in
> one document.
> 
> If others think I should take out the separate CLAS-note material and
> simply reference the material in the analysis note, I'll go with that.
> 
> Take care,
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
>> Hi Micheal,
>> I've attached my comments on the CLAS note.
>> 
>> My main comment, or question for discussion, is really about the level
>> of detail you go into for things which are already documented in CLAS
>> notes. My feeling is that several sections could be reduced down to a
>> summary with one or 2 plots, and a reference to the relevant CLAS note.
>> I think we'd be likely to get it through faster this way. For example,
>> there's a very detailed section on the moment method - I think that's a
>> great piece of work, but as a reviewer I'd be satisfied with an overview
>> of the concept, a statement about why it's a better way, and a plot
>> showing that it's consistent with the cos 2 phi method.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Ken
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 03/02/2012 06:39 PM, Michael Dugger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We have produced an analysis note for pion photoproduction that is ready
>>> for the g8b group to review.
>>> 
>>> The analysis note can be found at:
>>> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/g8b/ASU/g8bPionAnaV4.pdf
>>> 
>>> Since it is a relatively new requirement that the g8b group have an
>>> opportunity to review an analysis note previous to sending the document
>>> to an analysis review committee, the group has yet to set a time limit for
>>> the g8b review process. I feel it would be reasonable for the g8b group to
>>> have one week to make suggestions and comments previous to our sending
>>> the analysis note to committee.
>>> 
>>> If anyone thinks that they would like more than one week to review the
>>> document, please let us know.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Michael
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> G8b_run mailing list
>>> G8b_run at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> =======================================================
>> Ken Livingston
>> 
>> Dept. of Physics&  Astronomy,        Tel: +44 141 330 6428
>> University of Glasgow,               Fax: +44 141 330 5889
>> Glasgow G12 8QQ.
>> Scotland. UK.
>> =======================================================
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> G8b_run mailing list
> G8b_run at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g8b_run
>