Supply chain analytics is a valuable part of data-driven decision-making in various industries such as manufacturing, retail, healthcare, and logistics. It is the process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting data related to the movement of products and services from suppliers to customers.

Content:The archive contains the raw data used to generate the Figures 1-3 as well as the Supplementary Figures 1-9. Software:The data was created Igor Pro 6 and the Asylum Research Software 14. For best performance of data visualization these proprietary softwares are recommended. However, all the files can be read by Gwyddion, a freely available SPM data analysis tool (http://gwyddion.net/).Credit:When using this data, please cite the original publication.For further questions, please consult the article text or get in touch with the corresponding author.

Sample data for exercises in Further Adventures in Data Cleaning.

This repository was created for my Master's thesis in Computational Intelligence and Internet of Things at the University of Córdoba, Spain. The purpose of this repository is to store the datasets found that were used in some of the studies that served as research material for this Master's thesis. Also, the datasets used in the experimental part of this work are included.

Below are the datasets specified, along with the details of their references, authors, and download sources.

----------- STS-Gold Dataset ----------------

The dataset consists of 2026 tweets. The file consists of 3 columns: id, polarity, and tweet. The three columns denote the unique id, polarity index of the text and the tweet text respectively.

Reference: Saif, H., Fernandez, M., He, Y., & Alani, H. (2013). Evaluation datasets for Twitter sentiment analysis: a survey and a new dataset, the STS-Gold.

File name: sts_gold_tweet.csv

----------- Amazon Sales Dataset ----------------

This dataset is having the data of 1K+ Amazon Product's Ratings and Reviews as per their details listed on the official website of Amazon. The data was scraped in the month of January 2023 from the Official Website of Amazon.

Owner: Karkavelraja J., Postgraduate student at Puducherry Technological University (Puducherry, Puducherry, India)

Features:

• product_id - Product ID
• product_name - Name of the Product
• category - Category of the Product
• discounted_price - Discounted Price of the Product
• actual_price - Actual Price of the Product
• discount_percentage - Percentage of Discount for the Product
• rating - Rating of the Product
• rating_count - Number of people who voted for the Amazon rating
• about_product - Description about the Product
• user_id - ID of the user who wrote review for the Product
• user_name - Name of the user who wrote review for the Product
• review_id - ID of the user review
• review_title - Short review
• review_content - Long review
• img_link - Image Link of the Product
• product_link - Official Website Link of the Product

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

File name: amazon.csv

----------- Rotten Tomatoes Reviews Dataset ----------------

This rating inference dataset is a sentiment classification dataset, containing 5,331 positive and 5,331 negative processed sentences from Rotten Tomatoes movie reviews. On average, these reviews consist of 21 words. The first 5331 rows contains only negative samples and the last 5331 rows contain only positive samples, thus the data should be shuffled before usage.

This data is collected from https://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/pabo/movie-review-data/ as a txt file and converted into a csv file. The file consists of 2 columns: reviews and labels (1 for fresh (good) and 0 for rotten (bad)).

Reference: Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 115–124, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 2005. Association for Computational Linguistics

File name: data_rt.csv

----------- Preprocessed Dataset Sentiment Analysis ----------------

Preprocessed amazon product review data of Gen3EcoDot (Alexa) scrapped entirely from amazon.in
Stemmed and lemmatized using nltk.
Sentiment labels are generated using TextBlob polarity scores.

The file consists of 4 columns: index, review (stemmed and lemmatized review using nltk), polarity (score) and division (categorical label generated using polarity score).

DOI: 10.34740/kaggle/dsv/3877817

Citation: @misc{pradeesh arumadi_2022, title={Preprocessed Dataset Sentiment Analysis}, url={https://www.kaggle.com/dsv/3877817}, DOI={10.34740/KAGGLE/DSV/3877817}, publisher={Kaggle}, author={Pradeesh Arumadi}, year={2022} }

This dataset was used in the experimental phase of my research.

File name: EcoPreprocessed.csv

----------- Amazon Earphones Reviews ----------------

This dataset consists of a 9930 Amazon reviews, star ratings, for 10 latest (as of mid-2019) bluetooth earphone devices for learning how to train Machine for sentiment analysis.

This dataset was employed in the experimental phase of my research. To align it with the objectives of my study, certain reviews were excluded from the original dataset, and an additional column was incorporated into this dataset.

The file consists of 5 columns: ReviewTitle, ReviewBody, ReviewStar, Product and division (manually added - categorical label generated using ReviewStar score)

License: U.S. Government Works

Source: www.amazon.in

File name (original): AllProductReviews.csv (contains 14337 reviews)

File name (edited - used for my research) : AllProductReviews2.csv (contains 9930 reviews)

----------- Amazon Musical Instruments Reviews ----------------

This dataset contains 7137 comments/reviews of different musical instruments coming from Amazon.

This dataset was employed in the experimental phase of my research. To align it with the objectives of my study, certain reviews were excluded from the original dataset, and an additional column was incorporated into this dataset.

The file consists of 10 columns: reviewerID, asin (ID of the product), reviewerName, helpful (helpfulness rating of the review), reviewText, overall (rating of the product), summary (summary of the review), unixReviewTime (time of the review - unix time), reviewTime (time of the review (raw) and division (manually added - categorical label generated using overall score).

Source: http://jmcauley.ucsd.edu/data/amazon/

File name (original): Musical_instruments_reviews.csv (contains 10261 reviews)

File name (edited - used for my research) : Musical_instruments_reviews2.csv (contains 7137 reviews)

HR analytics, also referred to as people analytics, workforce analytics, or talent analytics, involves gathering together, analyzing, and reporting HR data. It is the collection and application of talent data to improve critical talent and business outcomes. It enables your organization to measure the impact of a range of HR metrics on overall business performance and make decisions based on data. They are primarily responsible for interpreting and analyzing vast datasets.

Download the data CSV files here ; https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18mQalCEyZypeV8TJeP3SME_R6qsCS2Og

Background The Infinium EPIC array measures the methylation status of > 850,000 CpG sites. The EPIC BeadChip uses a two-array design: Infinium Type I and Type II probes. These probe types exhibit different technical characteristics which may confound analyses. Numerous normalization and pre-processing methods have been developed to reduce probe type bias as well as other issues such as background and dye bias.
Methods This study evaluates the performance of various normalization methods using 16 replicated samples and three metrics: absolute beta-value difference, overlap of non-replicated CpGs between replicate pairs, and effect on beta-value distributions. Additionally, we carried out Pearson’s correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses using both raw and SeSAMe 2 normalized data.
Results The method we define as SeSAMe 2, which consists of the application of the regular SeSAMe pipeline with an additional round of QC, pOOBAH masking, was found to be the best-performing normalization method, while quantile-based methods were found to be the worst performing methods. Whole-array Pearson’s correlations were found to be high. However, in agreement with previous studies, a substantial proportion of the probes on the EPIC array showed poor reproducibility (ICC < 0.50). The majority of poor-performing probes have beta values close to either 0 or 1, and relatively low standard deviations. These results suggest that probe reliability is largely the result of limited biological variation rather than technical measurement variation. Importantly, normalizing the data with SeSAMe 2 dramatically improved ICC estimates, with the proportion of probes with ICC values > 0.50 increasing from 45.18% (raw data) to 61.35% (SeSAMe 2). Methods

Study Participants and Samples

The whole blood samples were obtained from the Health, Well-being and Aging (Saúde, Ben-estar e Envelhecimento, SABE) study cohort. SABE is a cohort of census-withdrawn elderly from the city of São Paulo, Brazil, followed up every five years since the year 2000, with DNA first collected in 2010. Samples from 24 elderly adults were collected at two time points for a total of 48 samples. The first time point is the 2010 collection wave, performed from 2010 to 2012, and the second time point was set in 2020 in a COVID-19 monitoring project (9±0.71 years apart). The 24 individuals were 67.41±5.52 years of age (mean ± standard deviation) at time point one; and 76.41±6.17 at time point two and comprised 13 men and 11 women.

All individuals enrolled in the SABE cohort provided written consent, and the ethic protocols were approved by local and national institutional review boards COEP/FSP/USP OF.COEP/23/10, CONEP 2044/2014, CEP HIAE 1263-10, University of Toronto RIS 39685.

Blood Collection and Processing

Genomic DNA was extracted from whole peripheral blood samples collected in EDTA tubes. DNA extraction and purification followed manufacturer’s recommended protocols, using Qiagen AutoPure LS kit with Gentra automated extraction (first time point) or manual extraction (second time point), due to discontinuation of the equipment but using the same commercial reagents. DNA was quantified using Nanodrop spectrometer and diluted to 50ng/uL. To assess the reproducibility of the EPIC array, we also obtained technical replicates for 16 out of the 48 samples, for a total of 64 samples submitted for further analyses. Whole Genome Sequencing data is also available for the samples described above.

Characterization of DNA Methylation using the EPIC array

Approximately 1,000ng of human genomic DNA was used for bisulphite conversion. Methylation status was evaluated using the MethylationEPIC array at The Centre for Applied Genomics (TCAG, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), following protocols recommended by Illumina (San Diego, California, USA).

Processing and Analysis of DNA Methylation Data

The R/Bioconductor packages Meffil (version 1.1.0), RnBeads (version 2.6.0), minfi (version 1.34.0) and wateRmelon (version 1.32.0) were used to import, process and perform quality control (QC) analyses on the methylation data. Starting with the 64 samples, we first used Meffil to infer the sex of the 64 samples and compared the inferred sex to reported sex. Utilizing the 59 SNP probes that are available as part of the EPIC array, we calculated concordance between the methylation intensities of the samples and the corresponding genotype calls extracted from their WGS data. We then performed comprehensive sample-level and probe-level QC using the RnBeads QC pipeline. Specifically, we (1) removed probes if their target sequences overlap with a SNP at any base, (2) removed known cross-reactive probes (3) used the iterative Greedycut algorithm to filter out samples and probes, using a detection p-value threshold of 0.01 and (4) removed probes if more than 5% of the samples having a missing value. Since RnBeads does not have a function to perform probe filtering based on bead number, we used the wateRmelon package to extract bead numbers from the IDAT files and calculated the proportion of samples with bead number < 3. Probes with more than 5% of samples having low bead number (< 3) were removed. For the comparison of normalization methods, we also computed detection p-values using out-of-band probes empirical distribution with the pOOBAH() function in the SeSAMe (version 1.14.2) R package, with a p-value threshold of 0.05, and the combine.neg parameter set to TRUE. In the scenario where pOOBAH filtering was carried out, it was done in parallel with the previously mentioned QC steps, and the resulting probes flagged in both analyses were combined and removed from the data.

Normalization Methods Evaluated

The normalization methods compared in this study were implemented using different R/Bioconductor packages and are summarized in Figure 1. All data was read into R workspace as RG Channel Sets using minfi’s read.metharray.exp() function. One sample that was flagged during QC was removed, and further normalization steps were carried out in the remaining set of 63 samples. Prior to all normalizations with minfi, probes that did not pass QC were removed. Noob, SWAN, Quantile, Funnorm and Illumina normalizations were implemented using minfi. BMIQ normalization was implemented with ChAMP (version 2.26.0), using as input Raw data produced by minfi’s preprocessRaw() function. In the combination of Noob with BMIQ (Noob+BMIQ), BMIQ normalization was carried out using as input minfi’s Noob normalized data. Noob normalization was also implemented with SeSAMe, using a nonlinear dye bias correction. For SeSAMe normalization, two scenarios were tested. For both, the inputs were unmasked SigDF Sets converted from minfi’s RG Channel Sets. In the first, which we call “SeSAMe 1”, SeSAMe’s pOOBAH masking was not executed, and the only probes filtered out of the dataset prior to normalization were the ones that did not pass QC in the previous analyses. In the second scenario, which we call “SeSAMe 2”, pOOBAH masking was carried out in the unfiltered dataset, and masked probes were removed. This removal was followed by further removal of probes that did not pass previous QC, and that had not been removed by pOOBAH. Therefore, SeSAMe 2 has two rounds of probe removal. Noob normalization with nonlinear dye bias correction was then carried out in the filtered dataset. Methods were then compared by subsetting the 16 replicated samples and evaluating the effects that the different normalization methods had in the absolute difference of beta values (|β|) between replicated samples.

Many initiatives encourage investigators to share their raw datasets in hopes of increasing research efficiency and quality. Despite these investments of time and money, we do not have a firm grasp of who openly shares raw research data, who doesn’t, and which initiatives are correlated with high rates of data sharing. In this analysis I use bibliometric methods to identify patterns in the frequency with which investigators openly archive their raw gene expression microarray datasets after study publication. Automated methods identified 11,603 articles published between 2000 and 2009 that describe the creation of gene expression microarray data. Associated datasets in best-practice repositories were found for 25% of these articles, increasing from less than 5% in 2001 to 30%-35% in 2007-2009. Accounting for sensitivity of the automated methods, approximately 45% of recent gene expression studies made their data publicly available. First-order factor analysis on 124 diverse bibliometric attributes of the data creation articles revealed 15 factors describing authorship, funding, institution, publication, and domain environments. In multivariate regression, authors were most likely to share data if they had prior experience sharing or reusing data, if their study was published in an open access journal or a journal with a relatively strong data sharing policy, or if the study was funded by a large number of NIH grants. Authors of studies on cancer and human subjects were least likely to make their datasets available. These results suggest research data sharing levels are still low and increasing only slowly, and data is least available in areas where it could make the biggest impact. Let’s learn from those with high rates of sharing to embrace the full potential of our research output.

We downloaded open access papers via PubMed from 10 systems and computational biology journals. We provide in this repository raw data in XML format. Our approach to extract software links from the downloaded papers and verify the archival stability of links is described in the Methods section of the paper. Timeout links were manually verified. Links extracted from the abstracts and the body of the surveyed papers (n=48,393) are available in CSV format here. For more information, please visit our main repository:https://github.com/smangul1/good.software

Modern data-driven research has the power to promote novel biomedical discoveries through secondary analyses of raw data. Therefore, it is important to ensure data-driven research with great reproducibility and robustness for promoting a precise and accurate secondary analysis of the immunogenomics data. In scientific research, rigorous conduct in designing and conducting experiments is needed, specifically in scientific writing and reporting results. It is also crucial to make raw data available, discoverable, and well described or annotated in order to promote future re-analysis of the data. In order to assess the data availability of published T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire data, we examined 11,918 TCR-Seq samples corresponding to 134 TCR-Seq studies ranging from 2006 to 2022. Among the 134 studies, only 38.1% had publicly available raw TCR-Seq data shared in public repositories. We also found a statistically significant association between the presence of data availability statements and the increase in raw data availability (p = 0.014). Yet, 46.8% of studies with data availability statements failed to share the raw TCR-Seq data. There is a pressing need for the biomedical community to increase awareness of the importance of promoting raw data availability in scientific research and take immediate action to improve its raw data availability enabling cost-effective secondary analysis of existing immunogenomics data by the larger scientific community.

The program collects data for analysis of traffic safety crashes to identify problems, and evaluate countermeasures leading to reducing injuries and property damage resulting from motor vehicle crashes. The FARS dataset contains descriptions, in standard format, of each fatal crash reported. To qualify for inclusion, a crash must involve a motor vehicle traveling a traffic-way customarily open to the public and resulting in the death of a person (occupant of a vehicle or a non-motorist) within 30 days of the crash. Each crash has more than 100 coded data elements that characterize the crash, the vehicles, and the people involved. The specific data elements may be changed slightly each year to conform to the changing user needs, vehicle characteristics and highway safety emphasis areas. The type of information that FARS, a major application, processes is therefore motor vehicle crash data.

The In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Kit Raw Materials market is a crucial segment within the healthcare industry, playing an essential role in the development and manufacturing of diagnostic tests that are pivotal for disease detection, monitoring, and management. These raw materials include reagents, calibrators, control

The Microbial Culture Medium Raw Materials market plays a vital role in biological research, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology by providing essential nutrients for the growth and cultivation of various microorganisms. These raw materials serve as the foundation for a variety of applications, from drug development a

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies generate huge amounts of sequencing data. Several microbial genome projects, in particular fungal whole genome sequencing, have used NGS techniques, because of their cost efficiency. However, NGS techniques also demand for computational tools to process and analyze massive datasets. Implementation of few data processing steps, including quality and length filters, often leads to a remarkable improvement in the accuracy and quality of data analyses. Choosing appropriate parameters for this purpose is not always straightforward, as these will vary with the dataset. In this study we present the FastQFS (Fastq Quality Filtering and Statistics) tool, which can be used for both read filtering and filtering parameters assessment. There are several tools available, but an important asset of FastQFS is that it provides the information of filtering parameters that fit best to the raw dataset, prior to computationally expensive filtering. It generates statistics of reads meeting different quality and length thresholds, and also the expected coverage depth of the genome which would be left after applying different filtering parameters. The FastQFS tool will help researchers to make informed decisions on NGS reads filtering parameters, avoiding time-consuming optimization of filtering criteria.

➡️ You can choose from multiple data formats, delivery frequency options, and delivery methods;

➡️ You can select raw or clean and AI-enriched datasets;

➡️ Multiple APIs designed for effortless search and enrichment (accessible using a user-friendly self-service tool);

➡️ Fresh data: daily updates, easy change tracking with dedicated data fields, and a constant flow of new data;

➡️ You get all necessary resources for evaluating our data: a free consultation, a data sample, or free credits for testing our APIs.

Coresignal's employee data enables you to create and improve innovative data-driven solutions and extract actionable business insights. These datasets are popular among companies from different industries, including HR and sales technology and investment.

Employee Data use cases:

✅ Source best-fit talent for your recruitment needs

Coresignal's Employee Data can help source the best-fit talent for your recruitment needs by providing the most up-to-date information on qualified candidates globally.

✅ Fuel your lead generation pipeline

Enhance lead generation with 712M+ up-to-date employee records from the largest professional network. Our Employee Data can help you develop a qualified list of potential clients and enrich your own database.

✅ Analyze talent for investment opportunities

Employee Data can help you generate actionable signals and identify new investment opportunities earlier than competitors or perform deeper analysis of companies you're interested in.

➡️ Why 400+ data-powered businesses choose Coresignal:

1. Experienced data provider (in the market since 2016);
2. Exceptional client service;
3. Responsible and secure data collection.

AbstractFunding agencies are reluctant to support data archiving, even though large research funders such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health acknowledge its importance for scientific progress. Our quantitative estimates of data reuse indicate that ongoing financial investment in data-archiving infrastructure provides a high scientific return. Usage notesPubMed Central reuse of GEO datasets deposited in 2007This is the raw data behind the analysis. It contains one row for every mention of a 2007 GEO dataset in PubMed Central. Each row identifies the mentioned GEO dataset, the PubMed Central article that mentions the dataset's accession number, whether the authors of the dataset and the attributing article overlap, and whether this is considered an instance of third-party data reuse.PMC_reuse_of_2007_GEO_datasets.csvAggregate Table DataAggregate table data behind the figures and results in the README associated with the main dataset. Includes Baseline metrics used for extrapolating PubMed Central (PMC) results to PubMed, Number of mentions of a 2007 GEO dataset by authors who submitted the dataset, and Number of mentions of a dataset by authors who DID NOT submit the dataset across 2007-2010.tables.csv

This dataset provides processed and normalized/standardized indices for the management tool 'Benchmarking'. Derived from five distinct raw data sources, these indices are specifically designed for comparative longitudinal analysis, enabling the examination of trends and relationships across different empirical domains (web search, literature, academic publishing, and executive adoption). The data presented here represent transformed versions of the original source data, aimed at achieving metric comparability. Users requiring the unprocessed source data should consult the corresponding Benchmarking dataset in the Management Tool Source Data (Raw Extracts) Dataverse. Data Files and Processing Methodologies: Google Trends File (Prefix: GT_): Normalized Relative Search Interest (RSI) Input Data: Native monthly RSI values from Google Trends (Jan 2004 - Jan 2025) for the query "benchmarking" + "benchmarking management". Processing: None. Utilizes the original base-100 normalized Google Trends index. Output Metric: Monthly Normalized RSI (Base 100). Frequency: Monthly. Google Books Ngram Viewer File (Prefix: GB_): Normalized Relative Frequency Input Data: Annual relative frequency values from Google Books Ngram Viewer (1950-2022, English corpus, no smoothing) for the query Benchmarking. Processing: Annual relative frequency series normalized (peak year = 100). Output Metric: Annual Normalized Relative Frequency Index (Base 100). Frequency: Annual. Crossref.org File (Prefix: CR_): Normalized Relative Publication Share Index Input Data: Absolute monthly publication counts matching Benchmarking-related keywords ["benchmarking" AND (...) - see raw data for full query] in titles/abstracts (1950-2025), alongside total monthly Crossref publications. Deduplicated via DOIs. Processing: Monthly relative share calculated (Benchmarking Count / Total Count). Monthly relative share series normalized (peak month's share = 100). Output Metric: Monthly Normalized Relative Publication Share Index (Base 100). Frequency: Monthly. Bain & Co. Survey - Usability File (Prefix: BU_): Normalized Usability Index Input Data: Original usability percentages (%) from Bain surveys for specific years: Benchmarking (1993, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017). Note: Not reported in 2022 survey data. Processing: Normalization: Original usability percentages normalized relative to its historical peak (Max % = 100). Output Metric: Biennial Estimated Normalized Usability Index (Base 100 relative to historical peak). Frequency: Biennial (Approx.). Bain & Co. Survey - Satisfaction File (Prefix: BS_): Standardized Satisfaction Index Input Data: Original average satisfaction scores (1-5 scale) from Bain surveys for specific years: Benchmarking (1993-2017). Note: Not reported in 2022 survey data. Processing: Standardization (Z-scores): Using Z = (X - 3.0) / 0.891609. Index Scale Transformation: Index = 50 + (Z * 22). Output Metric: Biennial Standardized Satisfaction Index (Center=50, Range?[1,100]). Frequency: Biennial (Approx.). File Naming Convention: Files generally follow the pattern: PREFIX_Tool_Processed.csv or similar, where the PREFIX indicates the data source (GT_, GB_, CR_, BU_, BS_). Consult the parent Dataverse description (Management Tool Comparative Indices) for general context and the methodological disclaimer. For original extraction details (specific keywords, URLs, etc.), refer to the corresponding Benchmarking dataset in the Raw Extracts Dataverse. Comprehensive project documentation provides full details on all processing steps.

This repository contains the data and code necessary to replicate all figures and tables in the working paper: "Does the disclosure of gun ownership affect crime? Evidence from New York" by Daniel Tannenbaum
There are four folders in this repository:(1) Build: contains all the .do files required to produce the analysis datasets, using the raw data (i.e. datasets in the RawData folder).(2) Analysis: contains all the .do files required to produce all the figures and tables in the paper, using the analysis datasets (i.e. datasets in the AnalysisData folder).(3) RawData: contains all the raw datasets used to produce the AnalysisData datasets. The only raw dataset used in the paper that is excluded from this folder is the proprietary housing assessor and sales transaction data from DataQuick, owned by Corelogic. If I receive approval to include this raw data in this repository I will do so in future versions of this repository.(4) AnalysisData: contains all the analysis datasets that are created using the Build and are used to produce the tables and figures in the paper.

Running the file Master_analysis.do in the Analysis folder will produce, in one script, all the tables and figures in the paper.

This dataset contains raw, unprocessed data files pertaining to the management tool 'Customer Segmentation', including the closely related concept of Market Segmentation. The data originates from five distinct sources, each reflecting different facets of the tool's prominence and usage over time. Files preserve the original metrics and temporal granularity before any comparative normalization or harmonization. Data Sources & File Details: Google Trends File (Prefix: GT_): Metric: Relative Search Interest (RSI) Index (0-100 scale). Keywords Used: "customer segmentation" + "market segmentation" + "customer segmentation marketing" Time Period: January 2004 - January 2025 (Native Monthly Resolution). Scope: Global Web Search, broad categorization. Extraction Date: Data extracted January 2025. Notes: Index relative to peak interest within the period for these terms. Reflects public/professional search interest trends. Based on probabilistic sampling. Source URL: Google Trends Query Google Books Ngram Viewer File (Prefix: GB_): Metric: Annual Relative Frequency (% of total n-grams in the corpus). Keywords Used: Customer Segmentation + Market Segmentation Time Period: 1950 - 2022 (Annual Resolution). Corpus: English. Parameters: Case Insensitive OFF, Smoothing 0. Extraction Date: Data extracted January 2025. Notes: Reflects term usage frequency in Google's digitized book corpus. Subject to corpus limitations (English bias, coverage). Source URL: Ngram Viewer Query Crossref.org File (Prefix: CR_): Metric: Absolute count of publications per month matching keywords. Keywords Used: ("customer segmentation" OR "market segmentation") AND ("marketing" OR "strategy" OR "management" OR "targeting" OR "analysis" OR "approach" OR "practice") Time Period: 1950 - 2025 (Queried for monthly counts based on publication date metadata). Search Fields: Title, Abstract. Extraction Date: Data extracted January 2025. Notes: Reflects volume of relevant academic publications indexed by Crossref. Deduplicated using DOIs; records without DOIs omitted. Source URL: Crossref Search Query Bain & Co. Survey - Usability File (Prefix: BU_): Metric: Original Percentage (%) of executives reporting tool usage. Tool Names/Years Included: Customer Segmentation (1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017). Respondent Profile: CEOs, CFOs, COOs, other senior leaders; global, multi-sector. Source: Bain & Company Management Tools & Trends publications (Rigby D., Bilodeau B., et al., various years: 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017). Note: Tool not included in the 2022 survey data. Data Compilation Period: July 2024 - January 2025. Notes: Data points correspond to specific survey years. Sample sizes: 1999/475; 2000/214; 2002/708; 2004/960; 2006/1221; 2008/1430; 2010/1230; 2012/1208; 2014/1067; 2017/1268. Bain & Co. Survey - Satisfaction File (Prefix: BS_): Metric: Original Average Satisfaction Score (Scale 0-5). Tool Names/Years Included: Customer Segmentation (1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017). Respondent Profile: CEOs, CFOs, COOs, other senior leaders; global, multi-sector. Source: Bain & Company Management Tools & Trends publications (Rigby D., Bilodeau B., et al., various years: 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017). Note: Tool not included in the 2022 survey data. Data Compilation Period: July 2024 - January 2025. Notes: Data points correspond to specific survey years. Sample sizes: 1999/475; 2000/214; 2002/708; 2004/960; 2006/1221; 2008/1430; 2010/1230; 2012/1208; 2014/1067; 2017/1268. Reflects subjective executive perception of utility. File Naming Convention: Files generally follow the pattern: PREFIX_Tool.csv, where the PREFIX indicates the data source: GT_: Google Trends GB_: Google Books Ngram CR_: Crossref.org (Count Data for this Raw Dataset) BU_: Bain & Company Survey (Usability) BS_: Bain & Company Survey (Satisfaction) The essential identification comes from the PREFIX and the Tool Name segment. This dataset resides within the 'Management Tool Source Data (Raw Extracts)' Dataverse.

Panel a: log-log scale plot of LMαi,y versus Γαi,y, where different regions are denoted in different colours and symbols, as explained in the legend. These data are properly binned (green squares) and best-fitted (solid line) by , in agreement with the theoretical result (2). The best-fit coefficients are a = 1.87 and b = −4.38 ⋅ 10−4. The parameter b is introduced to account for the error (calculated in terms of the standard deviation) associated to binned data, which is ≈ 5%. In general, the various regions seem to be homogeneously scattered around the best-fit curve. In the insets we show, as examples, the data pertaining to two selected regions, namely Limousin (upper inset) and Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur (lower inset). Notice that for both the insets, the best-fit previously obtained for the whole data set (solid line) still provides a proper fit. Panel b: For each region we calculate ρα, as defined in the text and deepened in the Theoretical Protocol Section. The horizontal line is drawn as a reference for the unitary value. Notice that the largest deviation from the unitary value is for Corsica. From this plot we can distinguish regions displaying a relatively large number of marriages (i.e., ρα > 1) and regions displaying a relatively small number of marriages (i.e., ρα < 1). This division is highlighted in the colormap presented in panel c. Interestingly, regions exhibiting analogous deviations share a certain degree of geographical proximity: regions with ρα > 1 (dark shading) correspond to the North-Eastern border of France, while regions with ρα < 1 (bright shading) correspond to the Center-Western part of France. Panel d: the two clusters of regions highlighted are analyzed separately. For each we bin the related raw data and get a best fit, still according to the function , obtaining aup = 1.90 and bup = −6.5 ⋅ 10−5 (R2 = 0.97) for the set of regions with ρα > 1, and adown = 1.68 and bdown = −2.2610−4 (R2 = 0.98) for the set of regions with ρα < 1; notice that aup/adown ≈ 1.1. Binned data for the former set (triangles) and for the latter set (square) are shown in the main panel, together with the related best fits, in a log-log scale plot. These fits are slightly better that the one obtained at the country level, suggesting that possible internal heterogeneities may be rather limited. In the insets we compare these best fits with raw data for two regions (Aquitaine and Auvergne) with ρα > 1 (upper inset) and two regions (Alsace and Franche-Comté) with ρα < 1 (lower inset). Notice that in both cases data points overlap both curves, again suggesting that the division highlighted here is rather mild.

Excel spreadsheet containing, in separate sheets, the underlying raw data for graphs and figure panels. (XLSX)