alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Determining	the	validity	of	

Guinier	analysis	in	slit-smeared	

small	angle	scattering	data

Roxanne	Ware	

SURF	2022,	NIST	Center	for	Neutron	Research	(NCNR)

Mentor:	Dr.	Rachel	Ford
Background	Information
Small	Angle	Scattering	is	a	powerful	technique	for	

investigating	large	scale	particles	or	structures

• High	Q

• Smaller	length	scales

• Shape	of	individual	particles

• Low	Q

• Larger	length	scales

• Plateau	or	peak

• Overall	size	and	structure	

larger	structures smaller	structures

1

~10 μm

1 μm
Guinier	analysis	is	a	shape	independent	method	for	

analyzing	data

Radius	of	gyration,	Rg

Guinier		approximation	

I Q − I!"# = I$e

%&

' (!

")"

2

Guinier Region

Slit-smearing	is	an	instrument	geometry	effect	

4

• Slit	geometry	enables	access	to	

very	low	Q	values

• USAXS	

• USANS

• Slit	geometry	causes	an	effect	

known	as	slit-smearing

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

1010

1011

I(Q)(1/cm)

10-5

2 3 4 5 6 7

10-4

2 3 4 5 6 7

10-3

Q (1/Å)

 No Smearing

Slit Height (1/Å)

 0.042

 0.117 

Results





Conclusions

• Evaluated	Guinier	analysis	for	slit-smeared	data

• Slit-smearing	distorts	sphere	Guinier	results	the	least	

• More	complex	shapes	show	greater	effect	of	smearing

• Guinier	analysis	is	not	ruled	out	for	slit-smeared	data,	but	if	using	more	

complex	shapes,	should	be	used	with	caution

11
Acknowledgements	

• Thanks	to	Rachel	Ford,	Yun	Liu,	Julie	Borchers,	Joe	Dura,	Susana	Teixeira,	

and	all	students	for	a	great	SURF	2022	

• SASView	(https://www.sasview.org/)
Backup	Slides	(Just	in	case	but	not	

used	in	presentation)
Shrinking Guinier region shows only slight improvement to 

cylinder with large aspect ratio.

9

0.1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

Rg*Qmax

7

8

9

1000

Fit R

g (Å)

Gaussian Polymer Coil Rg*Qmax

 True Rg

Decreasing Qmax used in 

Guinier plot

Percent Error: ~30% to ~24%

17
Shrinking Guinier shows only slight improvement to 

cylinder with large aspect ratio. L>>R

9

0.1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

Rg*Qmax

300

250

200

150

Fit R

g (Å)

 Cylinder R*Qmax

 True Rg Percent Error: ~37% to ~31%

15

Decreasing Qmax used in 

Guinier plot
Shrinking Guinier allows disc with large aspect ratio to be 

within a reasonable percent error.

9

0.1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

Rg*Qmax

740

720

700

680

660

640

620

600

Fit R

g(Å)

 Disc Rg*Qmax

 True Rg

Percent Error: ~12% to ~10%

R>>L

16

Decreasing Qmax used in 

Guinier plot




• Shrinking Guinier plot only slightly improves cylinder and 

Gaussian polymer coil deviation. 
Disc model deviates from true Rg but the effect of slitsmearing is not as drastic in higher aspect ratios. 

• Deviation increases as radius 

increases but the effect of the 

increasing radius is not as 

strong. 

R>>L

6

7

8

9

100

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fit R

g

(

Å

)

8 9

100

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1000

 Radius(Å)

 No Slit-Smearing

 Slit-Smearing

 True Rg

9
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

                                 Netegrity, Inc.

                            Certification Pursuant To
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Netegrity, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Barry N. Bycoff, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  January 29, 2004                  /s/ Barry N. Bycoff
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Barry N. Bycoff
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29221]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday December 16, 2014 At 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration. Information the premature disclosure of which would be 
likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a 
proposed Commission action.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-29221 Filed 12-9-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 3 on Form 10-K/A of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC (the "Companies")
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.

|/s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive OfficerJuly 3,
2008 |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74733-74734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29321]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the

[[Page 74734]]

provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation 
Cooperative Agreement (U01) and NIAID Clinical Trail Implementation 
Grant (R01).
    Date: January 9, 2015.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jane K. Battles, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers 
lane Room F30B, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5029, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91f3f0e5e5fdf4e2fbf0d1fcf0f8fdbffff8f9bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aecccfdadac2cbddc4cfeec3cfc7c280c0c7c680c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-29321 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Patrick T. Mooney, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President, certifythat:   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of AphtonCorporation;   2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; and3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report.     Date: February 25, 2004       Signature: /s/ Patrick T. Mooney, M.D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRELL WILLIAMS, :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 08-00433-KD-N

 :

BENJAMIN TAYLOR, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues

raised and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and dated April 23, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion

of this Court. 

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Kousa are DISMISSED without

prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as frivolous, and

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. The claims against Defendants Banks, Doe, Taylor, Morgan, Gilheart, Cummerlander, and

Kant, as alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), will proceed.

DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of May 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00433-KD-N Document 22 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 146 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 146

 To prohibit the flying of any flag other than the United States flag 
    over United States diplomatic and consular posts, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

Mr. Duncan (for himself, Mr. Norman, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Massie, Mr. Bishop 
     of North Carolina, Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Carter of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the flying of any flag other than the United States flag 
    over United States diplomatic and consular posts, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Old Glory Only Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FLYING OF CERTAIN FLAGS OVER UNITED STATES 
              DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS.

    The Secretary of State shall ensure that no United States 
diplomatic or consular post flies any flag other than the United States 
flag over such post.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23.02**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-87505, 333-92159, 333-93591, 333-32460, 333-35730, 333-64552, 333-59842, 333-55822 and 333-104711 on Form S-8 of our report dated August 26, 2005, relating to the 2004 consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedule of KANA Software, Inc. and subsidiaries, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kana Software, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

San Jose, California 

June 30, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73202-73203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28803]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0123; FRL-9920-13-Region 5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 73203]]


ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the October 17, 2014, direct 
final rule approving a revision to the Illinois State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) to phase out the requirements of the Stage II Vapor Recovery 
program.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 79 FR 62352 on October 17, 
2014, is withdrawn effective December 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source 
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#422321273427262d6c2430232c212b31212d022732236c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef8e8c8a998a8b80c1899d8e818c869c8c80af8a9f8ec1888099">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted this revision as a modification to the SIP for gasoline vapor 
recovery requirements. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if 
adverse comments were submitted by November 17, 2014, the rule would be 
withdrawn and not take effect. On October 20, 2014, EPA received an 
adverse comment and, therefore, is withdrawing the direct final rule. 
EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon 
the proposed action also published on October 17, 2014. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.720 published in the 
Federal Register on October 17, 2014 (79 FR 62352) on page 62356 is 
withdrawn effective December 10, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-28803 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 84-1801.

#### Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope et al. *v.*United States et al.,

474 U. S. 820. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### REXAM INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Avery Dennison Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1248.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 4, 2001.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Rexam Industries Corporation moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of SWK Holdings
Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles M. Jacobson Chief Financial Officer
of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report, to which this certification
is attached as Exhibit 32.02, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.







|Date: August 4, 2014                                                                | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Charles M. Jacobson
        Charles M. Jacobson
        Chief Financial Officer | 



A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained
by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
11343.

#### Gammage *v.*Perry, administrator.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Appeal; from Sumter superior court — Judge Littlejohn. January 23, 1920.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The provision of section 4073 of the Civil Code of 1910, that “any person interested as distributee or legatee may, after the expiration of one year from the grant of administration, cite the administrator to appear before the ordinary for a settlement of his accounts,” does not apply to judgment creditors of such legatees or distributees. The remedy of such creditors is plainly provided in sections 5303 and 5304 of the Civil Code of 1910; and the court of ordinary has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition of a judgment creditor of a distributee or legatee of an estate to cite the administrator to appear before the ordinary for an accounting and settlement of such funds in his hands as may be due to the distributee or legatee, and to pay out of such funds to the petitioner the amount of his judgment.

2. It follows from the above ruling that in the instant case the court of ordinary erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition, and that the judge of the superior court, on appeal, correctly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*306*Maynard & Williams,*for plaintiff.

*Wallis & Fort,*for defendant.
#### HARBURGER v. SMITH et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Simmons v. Cabanne, ante, p. 336;

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Wm.*Zaehritz, Judge-

Affirmed.

*B.P. Waggoner*and P. *Chouteau Dyer*for appellants.

*Daisy D. Barbee*for respondent.

MARSHALL, J.

This case is here upon a certificate of the judgment. No abstract of the record or briefs have been filed. The judgment shows that it is a proceeding under sections 650 and 651, Revised Statutes 1899, to have the court adjudge the rights of the parties to lot fifty-two of Forest Park Place, in City Block 4907 of the city of St. Louis, having a front of fifty feet on the south line of McPherson Avenue, and that the court adjudged the fee-simple title to the plaintiff. It was stated in the argument of the case of Simmons v. Cabanne, just decided, and found on page 336 of this volume, that this case depended upon the same facts and involved the same questions that are involved' in that ease, and that the decision of that case would *360determine this. If so the same result would follow in this ease as has just been announced in that case. But in any'event the judgment in this case, upon this state of the record, must be affirmed.

All concur, except *Valliant,*Jwho dissents.
11259.

#### Barber *v.*The State.

Decided April 14, 1920.

Indictment for larceny from house; from Monroe superior court—.Judge Searcy. January 10, 1920.

*Hubert F. Rawls, Walter J. Grace,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

“ In this case the motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight evidence authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but when there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” *Bradham*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 . S. E. 618), and cit. See also *Smith*v. *State,*91 *Ga.*188 (17 S. E. 68).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke J., concur.*
11386.

#### Ward *v.*City of Macon.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The act penalized by the first section of the ordinance of the City of Macon which the plaintiff in error was charged with having violated, to wit, the assembling of two or more persons anywhere within the limits of the city for the purpose of gaming, is not covered by any State law, and that portion of the ordinance is valid. See, as to the principle of law involved, *Callaway*v. *Mims, 5 Ga. App.*9 (62 S. E. 654) ; *Athens*v. *Atlanta,*6 *Ga. App.*244 (64 S. E. 711) ; *Sheppard*v. *Jackson,*11 *Ga. App.*812 (76 S. E. 367); *Jones*v. *Rome,*15 *Ga. App.*41 (82 S. E. 593); *Morris*v. *State,*18 *Ga. App.*684 (90 S. E. 361) ; *Ellis*v. *Golden,*18 *Ga. App.*749 (90 S. E. 495) ; *Allen*v. *Jennings,*134 *Ga.*838 (67 S. E. 883).

2. There was some slight evidence which authorized the finding of the re*321corder, and, that finding having been approved by the judge of ihe superior court, this court is without authority to set it aside.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Certiorari; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. January 27, 1920.

*Hunter & Daly, J. L. Wimberly,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. G. Plunkett, P. F. Brock,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*