[Wien] survey results

[Laurence Marks]

As a follow up, can I request a little more information comparing the
New and Old setrmt algorithms perhaps in a FAQ. I just noticed a very
large difference between them for bulk LaAlO3, e.g.

Old:
atom  Z   RMT-max   RMT
 1   8.0  1.77   1.77
 2  13.0  1.77   1.77
 3  57.0  2.50000  2.50000

New
atom  Z   RMT-max   RMT
 1   8.0  1.95   1.95
 2  13.0  1.60   1.60
 3  57.0  2.50000  2.50000

I assume that the New algorithm is better and this is "right", but  it
would be helpful to know why O is now being chosen so much larger than
Al, more like the relative atomic radii


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Peter Blaha
<pblaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> I've updated    http://www.wien2k.at/reg_user/faq/rkmax.html
>
> Maybe it helps if I put a link in w2web in the initialization section next to the
> RKmax input/editing ?  (But which experienced user is using w2web for intialization ?)
>
>
> Am 27.06.2013 16:49, schrieb Stefaan Cottenier:
>>
>> One week ago, a two-question survey was posted on this mailing list.
>> Here comes the result and a discussion/interpretation of the data.
>>
>> The goal of the survey was to collect quantitative information on the
>> following hypothesis:
>>
>> "In the transition from code development to code usage, inevitable some awareness and knowledge about fine (?) details gets lost. Developers tend to think that users know
>> more than they actually do. While users tend to think that there are less hidden subtleties than there actually are. It might well be that grey intermediate area of
>> supposed/lacking knowledge is far larger than either of both parties thinks it is."
>>
>> The discussion of one week ago about the relation between RKmax and Rmt offered an opportunity to collect some data to examine this hypothesis. The topic was one about
>> which an experienced user could think: "You can't use wien2k properly if you don't know this." While a 'general user' could think: "I can survive without this."
>>
>> 34 people filled out the survey. Less than the 100 I hoped for, but nevertheless sufficient for meaningful conclusions. The results can be found for a while at
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10829484/Results%20RKmax%20survey.pdf (attachment too large for this list).
>>
>> 1/3 of the respondents say they could have given the right answer on the RKmax question themselves. 2/3 say this was new for them. As one can expect that users who have no
>> clue at all about the topic are less
>> likely to take part in the survey, it seems fair to conclude that 75% or more of the wien2k community was not aware about this RKmax issue. A
>> number that might surprise some people.
>>
>> Whereas the first question of the survey roughly probes 'understanding', the second question of the survey asked about 'experience' (measured as the amount of years someone
>> has been using wien2k). Slightly less than one half of the respondents were relatively new users (<3y), the other half were quite to very much experienced (>3y, >7y). It is
>> interesting to correlate the answers on both questions in a knowledge-vs-experience graph (3th page of
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10829484/Results%20RKmax%20survey.pdf ) :
>>
>> It is reassuring to observe in this correlation that roughly spoken understanding seems to increase as a function of experience (or time). Nevertheless, even in the
>> category of the most experienced users (>7y), there are still almost twice as many who were not aware of the RKmax issue than those who were (26% vs. 15%).
>>
>> This is only a rough observation, that does not pretend to be a statistically significant scientific study. It does point to a trend, however.
>>
>> The bottom line: is there anything all of us, as a community, can do to improve the knowledge transfer towards 'general users'? Feel free to discuss this on this mailing
>> list, and in particular, to post suggestions.
>>
>> Stefaan
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wien mailing list
>> Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
>> http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
>> SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Peter Blaha
> Inst. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna
> Getreidemarkt 9, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
> Tel: +43-1-5880115671
> Fax: +43-1-5880115698
> email: pblaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at
> -----------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Wien mailing list
> Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
> http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
> SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html



-- 
Professor Laurence Marks
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Northwestern University
www.numis.northwestern.edu 1-847-491-3996
"Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what
nobody else has thought"
Albert Szent-Gyorgi