Introduction

The 802.11 standard includes several management features and corresponding frame types. One of them are Probe Requests (PR), which are sent by mobile devices in an unassociated state to scan the nearby area for existing wireless networks. The frame part of PRs consists of variable-length fields, called Information Elements (IE), which represent the capabilities of a mobile device, such as supported data rates.

This dataset contains PRs collected over a seven-day period by four gateway devices in an uncontrolled urban environment in the city of Catania.

It can be used for various use cases, e.g., analyzing MAC randomization, determining the number of people in a given location at a given time or in different time periods, analyzing trends in population movement (streets, shopping malls, etc.) in different time periods, etc.

Related dataset

Same authors also produced the Labeled dataset of IEEE 802.11 probe requests with same data layout and recording equipment.

Measurement setup

The system for collecting PRs consists of a Raspberry Pi 4 (RPi) with an additional WiFi dongle to capture WiFi signal traffic in monitoring mode (gateway device). Passive PR monitoring is performed by listening to 802.11 traffic and filtering out PR packets on a single WiFi channel.

The following information about each received PR is collected: - MAC address - Supported data rates - extended supported rates - HT capabilities - extended capabilities - data under extended tag and vendor specific tag - interworking - VHT capabilities - RSSI - SSID - timestamp when PR was received.

The collected data was forwarded to a remote database via a secure VPN connection. A Python script was written using the Pyshark package to collect, preprocess, and transmit the data.

Data preprocessing

The gateway collects PRs for each successive predefined scan interval (10 seconds). During this interval, the data is preprocessed before being transmitted to the database. For each detected PR in the scan interval, the IEs fields are saved in the following JSON structure:

PR_IE_data = { 'DATA_RTS': {'SUPP': DATA_supp , 'EXT': DATA_ext}, 'HT_CAP': DATA_htcap, 'EXT_CAP': {'length': DATA_len, 'data': DATA_extcap}, 'VHT_CAP': DATA_vhtcap, 'INTERWORKING': DATA_inter, 'EXT_TAG': {'ID_1': DATA_1_ext, 'ID_2': DATA_2_ext ...}, 'VENDOR_SPEC': {VENDOR_1:{ 'ID_1': DATA_1_vendor1, 'ID_2': DATA_2_vendor1 ...}, VENDOR_2:{ 'ID_1': DATA_1_vendor2, 'ID_2': DATA_2_vendor2 ...} ...} }

Supported data rates and extended supported rates are represented as arrays of values that encode information about the rates supported by a mobile device. The rest of the IEs data is represented in hexadecimal format. Vendor Specific Tag is structured differently than the other IEs. This field can contain multiple vendor IDs with multiple data IDs with corresponding data. Similarly, the extended tag can contain multiple data IDs with corresponding data.
Missing IE fields in the captured PR are not included in PR_IE_DATA.

When a new MAC address is detected in the current scan time interval, the data from PR is stored in the following structure:

{'MAC': MAC_address, 'SSIDs': [ SSID ], 'PROBE_REQs': [PR_data] },

where PR_data is structured as follows:

{ 'TIME': [ DATA_time ], 'RSSI': [ DATA_rssi ], 'DATA': PR_IE_data }.

This data structure allows to store only 'TOA' and 'RSSI' for all PRs originating from the same MAC address and containing the same 'PR_IE_data'. All SSIDs from the same MAC address are also stored. The data of the newly detected PR is compared with the already stored data of the same MAC in the current scan time interval. If identical PR's IE data from the same MAC address is already stored, only data for the keys 'TIME' and 'RSSI' are appended. If identical PR's IE data from the same MAC address has not yet been received, then the PR_data structure of the new PR for that MAC address is appended to the 'PROBE_REQs' key. The preprocessing procedure is shown in Figure ./Figures/Preprocessing_procedure.png

At the end of each scan time interval, all processed data is sent to the database along with additional metadata about the collected data, such as the serial number of the wireless gateway and the timestamps for the start and end of the scan. For an example of a single PR capture, see the Single_PR_capture_example.json file.

Folder structure

For ease of processing of the data, the dataset is divided into 7 folders, each containing a 24-hour period. Each folder contains four files, each containing samples from that device.

The folders are named after the start and end time (in UTC). For example, the folder 2022-09-22T22-00-00_2022-09-23T22-00-00 contains samples collected between 23th of September 2022 00:00 local time, until 24th of September 2022 00:00 local time.

Files representing their location via mapping: - 1.json -> location 1 - 2.json -> location 2 - 3.json -> location 3 - 4.json -> location 4

Environments description

The measurements were carried out in the city of Catania, in Piazza Università and Piazza del Duomo The gateway devices (rPIs with WiFi dongle) were set up and gathering data before the start time of this dataset. As of September 23, 2022, the devices were placed in their final configuration and personally checked for correctness of installation and data status of the entire data collection system. Devices were connected either to a nearby Ethernet outlet or via WiFi to the access point provided.

Four Raspbery Pi-s were used: - location 1 -> Piazza del Duomo - Chierici building (balcony near Fontana dell’Amenano) - location 2 -> southernmost window in the building of Via Etnea near Piazza del Duomo - location 3 -> nothernmost window in the building of Via Etnea near Piazza Università - location 4 -> first window top the right of the entrance of the University of Catania

Locations were suggested by the authors and adjusted during deployment based on physical constraints (locations of electrical outlets or internet access) Under ideal circumstances, the locations of the devices and their coverage area would cover both squares and the part of Via Etna between them, with a partial overlap of signal detection. The locations of the gateways are shown in Figure ./Figures/catania.png.

Known dataset shortcomings

Due to technical and physical limitations, the dataset contains some identified deficiencies.

PRs are collected and transmitted in 10-second chunks. Due to the limited capabilites of the recording devices, some time (in the range of seconds) may not be accounted for between chunks if the transmission of the previous packet took too long or an unexpected error occurred.

Every 20 minutes the service is restarted on the recording device. This is a workaround for undefined behavior of the USB WiFi dongle, which can no longer respond. For this reason, up to 20 seconds of data will not be recorded in each 20-minute period.

The devices had a scheduled reboot at 4:00 each day which is shown as missing data of up to a few minutes.

 Location 1 - Piazza del Duomo - Chierici

The gateway device (rPi) is located on the second floor balcony and is hardwired to the Ethernet port. This device appears to function stably throughout the data collection period. Its location is constant and is not disturbed, dataset seems to have complete coverage.

 Location 2 - Via Etnea - Piazza del Duomo

The device is located inside the building. During working hours (approximately 9:00-17:00), the device was placed on the windowsill. However, the movement of the device cannot be confirmed. As the device was moved back and forth, power outages and internet connection issues occurred. The last three days in the record contain no PRs from this location.

 Location 3 - Via Etnea - Piazza Università

Similar to Location 2, the device is placed on the windowsill and moved around by people working in the building. Similar behavior is also observed, e.g., it is placed on the windowsill and moved inside a thick wall when no people are present. This device appears to have been collecting data throughout the whole dataset period.

 Location 4 - Piazza Università

This location is wirelessly connected to the access point. The device was placed statically on a windowsill overlooking the square. Due to physical limitations, the device had lost power several times during the deployment. The internet connection was also interrupted sporadically.

Recognitions

The data was collected within the scope of Resiloc project with the help of City of Catania and project partners.

Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C (SIR-C) is part of an imaging radar system that was flown on board two Space Shuttle flights (9 - 20 April, 1994 and 30 September - 11 October, 1994). The USGS distributes the C-band (5.8 cm) and L-band (23.5 cm) data. All X-band (3 cm) data is distributed by DLR. There are several types of products that are derived from the SIR-C data: Survey Data is intended as a "quick look" browse for viewing the areas that were imaged by the SIR-C system. The data consists of a strip image of an entire data swath. Resolution is approximately 100 meters, processed to a 50-meter pixel spacing. Files are distributed via File Transfer Protocol (FTP) download. Precision (Standard) Data consists of a frame image of a data segment, which represents a processed subset of the data swath. It contains high-resolution multifrequency and multipolarization data. All precision data is in CEOS format. The following types of precision data products are available: Single-Look Complex (SLC) consists of one single-look file for each scene, per frequency. Each data segment will cover 50 kilometers along the flight track, and is broken into four processing runs (two L band, two C-band). Resolution and polarization will depend on the mode in which the data was collected. Available as calibrated or uncalibrated data. Multi-Look Complex (MLC) is based on an averaging of multiple looks, and consists of one file for each scene per frequency. Each data segment will cover 100 km along the flight track, and is broken into two processing runs (one L band and one C band). Polarization will depend on the modes in which the looks were collected. The data is available in 12.5- or 25-meter pixel spacing. Reformatted Signal Data (RSD) consists of the raw radar signal data only. Each data segment will cover 100 km along the flight track, and the segment will be broken into two processing runs (L-band and C-band). Interferometry Data consists of experimental multitemporal data that covers the same area. Most data takes were collected during repeat passes within the second flight (days 7, 8, 9, and/or 10). In addition, nine data takes were collected during the second flight that were repeat passes of the first flight. Most data takes were also single polarization, although dual and quad polarization data was also collected on some passes. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is not included with any of the SIR-C interferometric data. The following types of interferometry products are available: Interferometric Single-Look Complex (iSLC) consists of two or more uncalibrated SLC images that have been processed with the same Doppler centroid to allow interferometric processing. Each frame image covers 50 kilometers along the flight track. The data is available in CEOS format. Raw Interferogram product (RIn) involves the combination of two data takes over the same area to produce an interferogram for each frequency (L-band and C-band). The data is available in TAR format. Reformatted Signal Data (RSD) consists of radar signal data that has been processed from two or more data takes over the same area, but the data has not been combined. Although this is not technically an interferometric product, the RSD can then be used to generate an interferogram. Each frame will cover 100 km along the flight track. The data is available in CEOS format.

Summary:

Estimated stand-off distance between ADS-B equipped aircraft and obstacles. Obstacle information was sourced from the FAA Digital Obstacle File and the FHWA National Bridge Inventory. Aircraft tracks were sourced from processed data curated from the OpenSky Network. Results are presented as histograms organized by aircraft type and distance away from runways.

Description:

For many aviation safety studies, aircraft behavior is represented using encounter models, which are statistical models of how aircraft behave during close encounters. They are used to provide a realistic representation of the range of encounter flight dynamics where an aircraft collision avoidance system would be likely to alert. These models currently and have historically have been limited to interactions between aircraft; they have not represented the specific interactions between obstacles and aircraft equipped transponders. In response, we calculated the standoff distance between obstacles and ADS-B equipped manned aircraft.

For robustness, this assessment considered two different datasets of manned aircraft tracks and two datasets of obstacles. For robustness, MIT LL calculated the standoff distance using two different datasets of aircraft tracks and two datasets of obstacles. This approach aligned with the foundational research used to support the ASTM F3442/F3442M-20 well clear criteria of 2000 feet laterally and 250 feet AGL vertically.

The two datasets of processed tracks of ADS-B equipped aircraft curated from the OpenSky Network. It is likely that rotorcraft were underrepresented in these datasets. There were also no considerations for aircraft equipped only with Mode C or not equipped with any transponders. The first dataset was used to train the v1.3 uncorrelated encounter models and referred to as the “Monday” dataset. The second dataset is referred to as the “aerodrome” dataset and was used to train the v2.0 and v3.x terminal encounter model. The Monday dataset consisted of 104 Mondays across North America. The other dataset was based on observations at least 8 nautical miles within Class B, C, D aerodromes in the United States for the first 14 days of each month from January 2019 through February 2020. Prior to any processing, the datasets required 714 and 847 Gigabytes of storage. For more details on these datasets, please refer to "Correlated Bayesian Model of Aircraft Encounters in the Terminal Area Given a Straight Takeoff or Landing" and “Benchmarking the Processing of Aircraft Tracks with Triples Mode and Self-Scheduling.”

Two different datasets of obstacles were also considered. First was point obstacles defined by the FAA digital obstacle file (DOF) and consisted of point obstacle structures of antenna, lighthouse, meteorological tower (met), monument, sign, silo, spire (steeple), stack (chimney; industrial smokestack), transmission line tower (t-l tower), tank (water; fuel), tramway, utility pole (telephone pole, or pole of similar height, supporting wires), windmill (wind turbine), and windsock. Each obstacle was represented by a cylinder with the height reported by the DOF and a radius based on the report horizontal accuracy. We did not consider the actual width and height of the structure itself. Additionally, we only considered obstacles at least 50 feet tall and marked as verified in the DOF.

The other obstacle dataset, termed as “bridges,” was based on the identified bridges in the FAA DOF and additional information provided by the National Bridge Inventory. Due to the potential size and extent of bridges, it would not be appropriate to model them as point obstacles; however, the FAA DOF only provides a point location and no information about the size of the bridge. In response, we correlated the FAA DOF with the National Bridge Inventory, which provides information about the length of many bridges. Instead of sizing the simulated bridge based on horizontal accuracy, like with the point obstacles, the bridges were represented as circles with a radius of the longest, nearest bridge from the NBI. A circle representation was required because neither the FAA DOF or NBI provided sufficient information about orientation to represent bridges as rectangular cuboid. Similar to the point obstacles, the height of the obstacle was based on the height reported by the FAA DOF. Accordingly, the analysis using the bridge dataset should be viewed as risk averse and conservative. It is possible that a manned aircraft was hundreds of feet away from an obstacle in actuality but the estimated standoff distance could be significantly less. Additionally, all obstacles are represented with a fixed height, the potentially flat and low level entrances of the bridge are assumed to have the same height as the tall bridge towers. The attached figure illustrates an example simulated bridge.

It would had been extremely computational inefficient to calculate the standoff distance for all possible track points. Instead, we define an encounter between an aircraft and obstacle as when an aircraft flying 3069 feet AGL or less comes within 3000 feet laterally of any obstacle in a 60 second time interval. If the criteria were satisfied, then for that 60 second track segment we calculate the standoff distance to all nearby obstacles. Vertical separation was based on the MSL altitude of the track and the maximum MSL height of an obstacle.

For each combination of aircraft track and obstacle datasets, the results were organized seven different ways. Filtering criteria were based on aircraft type and distance away from runways. Runway data was sourced from the FAA runways of the United States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands open dataset. Aircraft type was identified as part of the em-processing-opensky workflow.

• All: No filter, all observations that satisfied encounter conditions
• nearRunway: Aircraft within or at 2 nautical miles of a runway
• awayRunway: Observations more than 2 nautical miles from a runway
• glider: Observations when aircraft type is a glider
• fwme: Observations when aircraft type is a fixed-wing multi-engine
• fwse: Observations when aircraft type is a fixed-wing single engine
• rotorcraft: Observations when aircraft type is a rotorcraft

License

This dataset is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form and for noncommercial purposes only. Only noncommercial use of your work is permitted. Noncommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. Exceptions are given for the not for profit standards organizations of ASTM International and RTCA.

MIT is releasing this dataset in good faith to promote open and transparent research of the low altitude airspace. Given the limitations of the dataset and a need for more research, a more restrictive license was warranted. Namely it is based only on only observations of ADS-B equipped aircraft, which not all aircraft in the airspace are required to employ; and observations were source from a crowdsourced network whose surveillance coverage has not been robustly characterized.

As more research is conducted and the low altitude airspace is further characterized or regulated, it is expected that a future version of this dataset may have a more permissive license.

Distribution Statement

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

© 2021 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Delivered to the U.S. Government with Unlimited Rights, as defined in DFARS Part 252.227-7013 or 7014 (Feb 2014). Notwithstanding any copyright notice, U.S. Government rights in this work are defined by DFARS 252.227-7013 or DFARS 252.227-7014 as detailed above. Use of this work other than as specifically authorized by the U.S. Government may violate any copyrights that exist in this work.

This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Aviation Administration under Air Force Contract No. FA8702-15-D-0001. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Aviation Administration.

This document is derived from work done for the FAA (and possibly others); it is not the direct product of work done for the FAA. The information provided herein may include content supplied by third parties. Although the data and information contained herein has been produced or processed from sources believed to be reliable, the Federal Aviation Administration makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, legality, reliability or usefulness of any information, conclusions or recommendations provided herein. Distribution of the information contained herein does not constitute an endorsement or warranty of the data or information provided herein by the Federal Aviation Administration or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the U.S. Department of

Abstract

Syngenta is committed to increasing crop productivity and to using limited resources such as land, water and inputs more efficiently. Since 2014, Syngenta has been measuring trends in agricultural input efficiency on a global network of real farms. The Good Growth Plan dataset shows aggregated productivity and resource efficiency indicators by harvest year. The data has been collected from more than 4,000 farms and covers more than 20 different crops in 46 countries. The data (except USA data and for Barley in UK, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, France and Spain) was collected, consolidated and reported by Kynetec (previously Market Probe), an independent market research agency. It can be used as benchmarks for crop yield and input efficiency.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Agricultural holdings

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A. Sample design Farms are grouped in clusters, which represent a crop grown in an area with homogenous agro- ecological conditions and include comparable types of farms. The sample includes reference and benchmark farms. The reference farms were selected by Syngenta and the benchmark farms were randomly selected by Kynetec within the same cluster.

B. Sample size Sample sizes for each cluster are determined with the aim to measure statistically significant increases in crop efficiency over time. This is done by Kynetec based on target productivity increases and assumptions regarding the variability of farm metrics in each cluster. The smaller the expected increase, the larger the sample size needed to measure significant differences over time. Variability within clusters is assumed based on public research and expert opinion. In addition, growers are also grouped in clusters as a means of keeping variances under control, as well as distinguishing between growers in terms of crop size, region and technological level. A minimum sample size of 20 interviews per cluster is needed. The minimum number of reference farms is 5 of 20. The optimal number of reference farms is 10 of 20 (balanced sample).

C. Selection procedure The respondents were picked randomly using a “quota based random sampling” procedure. Growers were first randomly selected and then checked if they complied with the quotas for crops, region, farm size etc. To avoid clustering high number of interviews at one sampling point, interviewers were instructed to do a maximum of 5 interviews in one village.

BF Screened from Japan were selected based on the following criterion: Location: Hokkaido Tokachi (JA Memuro, JA Otofuke, JA Tokachi Shimizu, JA Obihiro Taisho) --> initially focus on Memuro, Otofuke, Tokachi Shimizu, Obihiro Taisho // Added locations in GGP 2015 due to change of RF: Obhiro, Kamikawa, Abashiri
BF: no use of in furrow application (Amigo) - no use of Amistar

Contract farmers of snacks and other food companies --> screening question: 'Do you have quality contracts in place with snack and food companies for your potato production? Y/N --> if no, screen out

Increase of marketable yield --> screening question: 'Are you interested in growing branded potatoes (premium potatoes for processing industry)? Y/N --> if no, screen out

Potato growers for process use
Background info: No mention of Syngenta Background info: - Labor cost is very serious issue: In general, labor cost in Japan is very high. Growers try to reduce labor cost by mechanization. Percentage of labor cost in production cost. They would like to manage cost of labor - Quality and yield driven

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Data collection tool for 2019 covered the following information:

(A) PRE- HARVEST INFORMATION

PART I: Screening PART II: Contact Information PART III: Farm Characteristics a. Biodiversity conservation b. Soil conservation c. Soil erosion d. Description of growing area e. Training on crop cultivation and safety measures PART IV: Farming Practices - Before Harvest a. Planting and fruit development - Field crops b. Planting and fruit development - Tree crops c. Planting and fruit development - Sugarcane d. Planting and fruit development - Cauliflower e. Seed treatment

(B) HARVEST INFORMATION

PART V: Farming Practices - After Harvest a. Fertilizer usage b. Crop protection products c. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Field crops d. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Tree crops e. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Sugarcane f. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Banana g. After harvest PART VI - Other inputs - After Harvest a. Input costs b. Abiotic stress c. Irrigation

See all questionnaires in external materials tab

Cleaning operations

Data processing:

Kynetec uses SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for data entry, cleaning, analysis, and reporting. After collection, the farm data is entered into a local database, reviewed, and quality-checked by the local Kynetec agency. In the case of missing values or inconsistencies, farmers are re-contacted. In some cases, grower data is verified with local experts (e.g. retailers) to ensure data accuracy and validity. After country-level cleaning, the farm-level data is submitted to the global Kynetec headquarters for processing. In the case of missing values or inconsistences, the local Kynetec office was re-contacted to clarify and solve issues.

Quality assurance Various consistency checks and internal controls are implemented throughout the entire data collection and reporting process in order to ensure unbiased, high quality data.

• Screening: Each grower is screened and selected by Kynetec based on cluster-specific criteria to ensure a comparable group of growers within each cluster. This helps keeping variability low.

• Evaluation of the questionnaire: The questionnaire aligns with the global objective of the project and is adapted to the local context (e.g. interviewers and growers should understand what is asked). Each year the questionnaire is evaluated based on several criteria, and updated where needed.

• Briefing of interviewers: Each year, local interviewers - familiar with the local context of farming -are thoroughly briefed to fully comprehend the questionnaire to obtain unbiased, accurate answers from respondents.

• Cross-validation of the answers: o Kynetec captures all growers' responses through a digital data-entry tool. Various logical and consistency checks are automated in this tool (e.g. total crop size in hectares cannot be larger than farm size) o Kynetec cross validates the answers of the growers in three different ways: 1. Within the grower (check if growers respond consistently during the interview) 2. Across years (check if growers respond consistently throughout the years) 3. Within cluster (compare a grower's responses with those of others in the group) o All the above mentioned inconsistencies are followed up by contacting the growers and asking them to verify their answers. The data is updated after verification. All updates are tracked.

• Check and discuss evolutions and patterns: Global evolutions are calculated, discussed and reviewed on a monthly basis jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• Sensitivity analysis: sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the global results in terms of outliers, retention rates and overall statistical robustness. The results of the sensitivity analysis are discussed jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• It is recommended that users interested in using the administrative level 1 variable in the location dataset use this variable with care and crosscheck it with the postal code variable.

Data appraisal

Due to the above mentioned checks, irregularities in fertilizer usage data were discovered which had to be corrected:

For data collection wave 2014, respondents were asked to give a total estimate of the fertilizer NPK-rates that were applied in the fields. From 2015 onwards, the questionnaire was redesigned to be more precise and obtain data by individual fertilizer products. The new method of measuring fertilizer inputs leads to more accurate results, but also makes a year-on-year comparison difficult. After evaluating several solutions to this problems, 2014 fertilizer usage (NPK input) was re-estimated by calculating a weighted average of fertilizer usage in the following years.

Modal Service data and Safety & Security (S&S) public transit time series data delineated by transit/agency/mode/year/month. Includes all Full Reporters--transit agencies operating modes with more than 30 vehicles in maximum service--to the National Transit Database (NTD). This dataset will be updated monthly. The monthly ridership data is released one month after the month in which the service is provided. Records with null monthly service data reflect late reporting. The S&S statistics provided include both Major and Non-Major Events where applicable. Events occurring in the past three months are excluded from the corresponding monthly ridership rows in this dataset while they undergo validation. This dataset is the only NTD publication in which all Major and Non-Major S&S data are presented without any adjustment for historical continuity.

This training dataset was calculated using the mechanistic modeling approach. See the “Benchmark Synthetic Training Data for Artificial Intelligence-based Li-ion Diagnosis and Prognosis“ publication for mode details. More details will be added when published. The prognosis dataset was harder to define as there are no limits on how the three degradation modes can evolve. For this proof of concept work, we considered eight parameters to scan. For each degradation mode, degradation was chosen to follow equation (1).

%degradation=a × cycle+ (exp^(b×cycle)-1) (1)

Considering the three degradation modes, this accounts for six parameters to scan. In addition, two other parameters were added, a delay for the exponential factor for LLI, and a parameter for the reversibility of lithium plating. The delay was introduced to reflect degradation paths where plating cannot be explained by an increase of LAMs or resistance [55]. The chosen parameters and their values are summarized in Table S1 and their evolution is represented in Figure S1. Figure S1(a,b) presents the evolution of parameters p1 to p7. At the worst, the cells endured 100% of one of the degradation modes in around 1,500 cycles. Minimal LLI was chosen to be 20% after 3,000 cycles. This is to guarantee at least 20% capacity loss for all the simulations. For the LAMs, conditions were less restrictive, and, after 3,000 cycles, the lowest degradation is of 3%. The reversibility factor p8 was calculated with equation (2) when LAMNE > PT.

%LLI=%LLI+p8 (LAM_PE-PT) (2)

Where PT was calculated with equation (3) from [60].

PT=100-((100-LAMPE)/(100×LRini-LAMPE ))×(100-OFSini-LLI) (3)

Varying all those parameters accounted for more than 130,000 individual duty cycles. With one voltage curve for every 100 cycles. 6 MATLAB© .mat files are included: The GIC-LFP_duty_other.mat file contains 12 variables Qnorm: normalize capacity scale for all voltage curves

P1 to p8: values used to generate the duty cycles

Key: index for which values were used for each degradation paths. 1 -p1, … 8 - p8

QL: capacity loss, one line per path, one column per 100 cycles.

File GIC-LFP_duty_LLI-LAMsvalues.mat contains the values for LLI, LAMPE and LAMNE for all cycles (1line per 100 cycles) and duty cycles (columns).

Files GIC-LFP_duty_1 to _4 files contains the voltage data split into 1GB chunks (40,000 simulations). Each cell corresponds to 1 line in the key variable. Inside each cell, one colunm per 100 cycles.

Visitor Arrivals: Marine: North America: Canada data was reported at 0.503 Person th in Dec 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.275 Person th for Nov 2018. Visitor Arrivals: Marine: North America: Canada data is updated monthly, averaging 0.038 Person th from Jan 1989 (Median) to Dec 2018, with 360 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.024 Person th in Feb 2009 and a record low of 0.000 Person th in Oct 2018. Visitor Arrivals: Marine: North America: Canada data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Tourism. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Tourism Sector – Table BR.QB003: No of Visitors Arrivals: by Mode of Transport. According Ministry of Tourism, the monthly Visitor Arrivals will release in annual basis due to Tourism Ministry receive once in the year some input data from the Federal Policy, based on these data they perform the estimation for all the months in the year

We provide parameters and predicted probabilities of mode choice (at trip level) and ride pass subscription (at individual level) for microtransit in Arlington, TX. The parameters are estimated by an agent-based, nested behavioral model that is developed in the C2SMARTER project “Multi-modal Tripchain Planner for Disadvantaged Travelers to Incentivize Transit Usage” (Award #69A3551747124). We separate the choice related to microtransit into two parts: travel mode choice and ride pass subscription choice. Synthetic population data from Replica Inc. and microtransit service data from City of Arlington are used for estimation.

In the lower-branch travel mode choice, individuals decide on mode to use by considering factors such as travel time, cost, trip purpose, tour type, and mode-specific preferences. The mode choice set includes driving, walking, biking, carpool, and microtransit. Different from traditional mode choice models, we allow time and cost parameters to vary across individuals, and we allow mode specific constants to vary across trip OD pairs. This makes sense when we do not have sufficient data for socioeconomic attributes and built environment variables. The assumption we made here is that the impacts of these unobserved variables are included in the nonparametric distribution of individual and OD pair-level parameters.

In the upper-branch ride pass subscription choice, individuals decide whether to purchase a weekly ride pass, a monthly ride pass, or no ride pass at all. By subscribing to a ride pass, travelers pay an amount of money in advance and enjoy free microtransit trips until the ride pass expires. The utility of purchasing a ride pass consists of four components: (1) the utility related to the prices of ride passes, (2) the utility related to the change in consumer surplus (or compensating variation) brought by free microtransit trips with a ride pass, (3) the utility specific to microtransit users, and (4) the alternative specific constant of the ride pass. Given the data availability, we consider the ride pass model as a simple MNL model with six parameters to calibrate. These ride pass parameters are calibrated using the Nelder-Mead Simplex Method. The cost function to minimize is the squared distance between the predicted ride pass market share and the observed one.

Accordingly, this dataset consists of six .csv files:

• Mode_choice_parameters_weekday.csv
• Mode_choice_parameters_weekend.csv
• RidePass_subscription_parameters.csv
• Mode_choice_probability_weekday.csv
• Mode_choice_probability_weekend.csv
• Ridepass_subscription_probability.csv

Field definition in "Mode_choice_parameters_weekday.csv" and "Mode_choice_parameters_weekend.csv"

Field definition in "RidePass_subscription_parameters.csv"

Field definition in "Mode_choice_probability_weekday.csv" and "Mode_choice_probability_weekend.csv"

Field definition in "Ridepass_subscription_probability.csv"

As of Report Year (RY) 2023, FTA requires that reporters with fixed route modes create and maintain a public domain general transit feed specification (GTFS) dataset that reflects their fixed route service. This specification allows for the mapping and other geospatial data visualization and analyses of key transit elements such as stops, routes, and trips. At least one GTFS weblink is provided by the transit agency for each fixed route bus mode and type of service. These include all Rail modes as well as Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, Commuter Bus, Ferryboat and Trolleybus. GTFS requires that an overarching compressed file contain, at a minimum, seven underlying text files: (a) Agency; (b) Stops; (c) Routes; (d) Trips; (e) Stop Times; (f) Calendar or Calendar Dates.txt; and (g) Feed Info.txt. An eighth file, Shapes.txt, is an optional file. FTA collects and publishes these links for further analysis using related GTFS files. FTA is not responsible for managing the websites that host these files, and users with questions regarding the GTFS data are encouraged to contact the transit agency. In many cases, publicly hosted weblinks could not be provided (i.e., due to constraints within the transit agency), but the agency was able to produce a zip file of the required GTFS data. Demand Response, Vanpool, and other non-fixed route modes are excluded. The column "Alternate Format" indicates that the agency provided FTA a weblink in an alternate format with some justification for doing so. The file "Waived" indicates that no GTFS files were produced and FTA granted the agency a waiver from the requirement in Report Year 2023. NTD Data Tables organize and summarize data from the 2023 National Transit Database in a manner that is more useful for quick reference and summary analysis. This dataset is based on the 2023 General Transit Feed Specification database file. If you have any other questions about this table, please contact the NTD Help Desk at NTDHelp@dot.gov.

This paper explores a unique dataset of all the SET ratings provided by students of one university in Poland at the end of the winter semester of the 2020/2021 academic year. The SET questionnaire used by this university is presented in Appendix 1. The dataset is unique for several reasons. It covers all SET surveys filled by students in all fields and levels of study offered by the university. In the period analysed, the university was entirely in the online regime amid the Covid-19 pandemic. While the expected learning outcomes formally have not been changed, the online mode of study could have affected the grading policy and could have implications for some of the studied SET biases. This Covid-19 effect is captured by econometric models and discussed in the paper. The average SET scores were matched with the characteristics of the teacher for degree, seniority, gender, and SET scores in the past six semesters; the course characteristics for time of day, day of the week, course type, course breadth, class duration, and class size; the attributes of the SET survey responses as the percentage of students providing SET feedback; and the grades of the course for the mean, standard deviation, and percentage failed. Data on course grades are also available for the previous six semesters. This rich dataset allows many of the biases reported in the literature to be tested for and new hypotheses to be formulated, as presented in the introduction section. The unit of observation or the single row in the data set is identified by three parameters: teacher unique id (j), course unique id (k) and the question number in the SET questionnaire (n ϵ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} ). It means that for each pair (j,k), we have nine rows, one for each SET survey question, or sometimes less when students did not answer one of the SET questions at all. For example, the dependent variable SET_score_avg(j,k,n) for the triplet (j=Calculus, k=John Smith, n=2) is calculated as the average of all Likert-scale answers to question nr 2 in the SET survey distributed to all students that took the Calculus course taught by John Smith. The data set has 8,015 such observations or rows. The full list of variables or columns in the data set included in the analysis is presented in the attached filesection. Their description refers to the triplet (teacher id = j, course id = k, question number = n). When the last value of the triplet (n) is dropped, it means that the variable takes the same values for all n ϵ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}.Two attachments:- word file with variables description- Rdata file with the data set (for R language).Appendix 1. Appendix 1. The SET questionnaire was used for this paper. Evaluation survey of the teaching staff of [university name] Please, complete the following evaluation form, which aims to assess the lecturer’s performance. Only one answer should be indicated for each question. The answers are coded in the following way: 5- I strongly agree; 4- I agree; 3- Neutral; 2- I don’t agree; 1- I strongly don’t agree. Questions 1 2 3 4 5 I learnt a lot during the course. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ I think that the knowledge acquired during the course is very useful. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The professor used activities to make the class more engaging. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ If it was possible, I would enroll for the course conducted by this lecturer again. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The classes started on time. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer always used time efficiently. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer delivered the class content in an understandable and efficient way. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer was available when we had doubts. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ The lecturer treated all students equally regardless of their race, background and ethnicity. ○ ○

Visitor Arrivals: Air: Central America & Caribbean: Costa Rica data was reported at 0.920 Person th in Dec 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.925 Person th for Nov 2018. Visitor Arrivals: Air: Central America & Caribbean: Costa Rica data is updated monthly, averaging 0.433 Person th from Jan 1989 (Median) to Dec 2018, with 360 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 5.177 Person th in Jun 2014 and a record low of 0.033 Person th in Apr 1993. Visitor Arrivals: Air: Central America & Caribbean: Costa Rica data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Tourism. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Tourism Sector – Table BR.QB003: No of Visitors Arrivals: by Mode of Transport. According Ministry of Tourism, the monthly Visitor Arrivals will release in annual basis due to Tourism Ministry receive once in the year some input data from the Federal Policy, based on these data they perform the estimation for all the months in the year