Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

make part5_agg2_60seconds work for fragmentation metrics only, or explain in the vignette better #745

Open
Maylor8 opened this issue Mar 6, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@Maylor8
Copy link

Maylor8 commented Mar 6, 2023

To generate fragmentation metrics, we need to include part5_agg2_60seconds=TRUE. However, this messes up all of the other metrics in the part5 summary outputs because all of it is calculated on 60s, not 5s data.

Solutions:

  1. Can this be made clear in the vignette for other users who may not realise this?
    OR
  2. If possible, can this function work externally to the generation of the other traditional part5 outputs so we don't need to run it twice? one to get our daily summary variables based on 5s epochs, then again aggregated to generate fragmentation metrics?

A development somewhat related is also to have the function to generate csv outputs based on a 60s aggregate for timestamps in instances such as graphing purposes, when the actual summary metrics are made using 5s epochs.

@Maylor8 Maylor8 changed the title make part5_agg2_60seconds work for fragmentation metrics only make part5_agg2_60seconds work for fragmentation metrics only, or explain in the vignette better Mar 6, 2023
@vincentvanhees
Copy link
Member

Thanks, great suggestion. I think both documentation and extra argument are needed.

Here, it may be helpful to think about a new input arguments to eventually replace part5_agg2_60seconds to make it all more flexible. For example one argument for each functionality, such as: epochSize.part5.timeuse = 5 and epochSize.part5.frag = 60.

@Maylor8
Copy link
Author

Maylor8 commented Mar 15, 2023

Thanks Vincent, that would be an excellent solution if it was made that way.

@jhmigueles jhmigueles self-assigned this Sep 7, 2023
@jhmigueles jhmigueles mentioned this issue Sep 13, 2023
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants