Sheet 1 (Raw-Data): The raw data of the study is provided, presenting the tagging results for the used measures described in the paper. For each subject, it includes multiple columns: A. a sequential student ID B an ID that defines a random group label and the notation C. the used notation: user Story or use Cases D. the case they were assigned to: IFA, Sim, or Hos E. the subject's exam grade (total points out of 100). Empty cells mean that the subject did not take the first exam F. a categorical representation of the grade L/M/H, where H is greater or equal to 80, M is between 65 included and 80 excluded, L otherwise G. the total number of classes in the student's conceptual model H. the total number of relationships in the student's conceptual model I. the total number of classes in the expert's conceptual model J. the total number of relationships in the expert's conceptual model K-O. the total number of encountered situations of alignment, wrong representation, system-oriented, omitted, missing (see tagging scheme below) P. the researchers' judgement on how well the derivation process explanation was explained by the student: well explained (a systematic mapping that can be easily reproduced), partially explained (vague indication of the mapping ), or not present.

Tagging scheme:
Aligned (AL) - A concept is represented as a class in both models, either

with the same name or using synonyms or clearly linkable names; Wrongly represented (WR) - A class in the domain expert model is incorrectly represented in the student model, either (i) via an attribute, method, or relationship rather than class, or (ii) using a generic term (e.g., user'' instead ofurban planner''); System-oriented (SO) - A class in CM-Stud that denotes a technical implementation aspect, e.g., access control. Classes that represent legacy system or the system under design (portal, simulator) are legitimate; Omitted (OM) - A class in CM-Expert that does not appear in any way in CM-Stud; Missing (MI) - A class in CM-Stud that does not appear in any way in CM-Expert.

All the calculations and information provided in the following sheets

originate from that raw data.

Sheet 2 (Descriptive-Stats): Shows a summary of statistics from the data collection,

including the number of subjects per case, per notation, per process derivation rigor category, and per exam grade category.

Sheet 3 (Size-Ratio):

The number of classes within the student model divided by the number of classes within the expert model is calculated (describing the size ratio). We provide box plots to allow a visual comparison of the shape of the distribution, its central value, and its variability for each group (by case, notation, process, and exam grade) . The primary focus in this study is on the number of classes. However, we also provided the size ratio for the number of relationships between student and expert model.

Sheet 4 (Overall):

Provides an overview of all subjects regarding the encountered situations, completeness, and correctness, respectively. Correctness is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that is fully aligned with the classes in the corresponding expert model. It is calculated by dividing the number of aligned concepts (AL) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), omitted concepts (OM), system-oriented concepts (SO), and wrong representations (WR). Completeness on the other hand, is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that are correctly or incorrectly represented over the number of classes in the expert model. Completeness is calculated by dividing the sum of aligned concepts (AL) and wrong representations (WR) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), wrong representations (WR) and omitted concepts (OM). The overview is complemented with general diverging stacked bar charts that illustrate correctness and completeness.

For sheet 4 as well as for the following four sheets, diverging stacked bar

charts are provided to visualize the effect of each of the independent and mediated variables. The charts are based on the relative numbers of encountered situations for each student. In addition, a "Buffer" is calculated witch solely serves the purpose of constructing the diverging stacked bar charts in Excel. Finally, at the bottom of each sheet, the significance (T-test) and effect size (Hedges' g) for both completeness and correctness are provided. Hedges' g was calculated with an online tool: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. The independent and moderating variables can be found as follows:

Sheet 5 (By-Notation):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by notation - UC, US.

Sheet 6 (By-Case):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by case - SIM, HOS, IFA.

Sheet 7 (By-Process):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by how well the derivation process is explained - well explained, partially explained, not present.

Sheet 8 (By-Grade):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by the exam grades, converted to categorical values High, Low , and Medium.

Time-Series Matrix (TSMx): A visualization tool for plotting multiscale temporal trends TSMx is an R script that was developed to facilitate multi-temporal-scale visualizations of time-series data. The script requires only a two-column CSV of years and values to plot the slope of the linear regression line for all possible year combinations from the supplied temporal range. The outputs include a time-series matrix showing slope direction based on the linear regression, slope values plotted with colors indicating magnitude, and results of a Mann-Kendall test. The start year is indicated on the y-axis and the end year is indicated on the x-axis. In the example below, the cell in the top-right corner is the direction of the slope for the temporal range 2001–2019. The red line corresponds with the temporal range 2010–2019 and an arrow is drawn from the cell that represents that range. One cell is highlighted with a black border to demonstrate how to read the chart—that cell represents the slope for the temporal range 2004–2014. This publication entry also includes an excel template that produces the same visualizations without a need to interact with any code, though minor modifications will need to be made to accommodate year ranges other than what is provided. TSMx for R was developed by Georgios Boumis; TSMx was originally conceptualized and created by Brad G. Peter in Microsoft Excel. Please refer to the associated publication: Peter, B.G., Messina, J.P., Breeze, V., Fung, C.Y., Kapoor, A. and Fan, P., 2024. Perspectives on modifiable spatiotemporal unit problems in remote sensing of agriculture: evaluating rice production in Vietnam and tools for analysis. Frontiers in Remote Sensing, 5, p.1042624. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2024.1042624 TSMx sample chart from the supplied Excel template. Data represent the productivity of rice agriculture in Vietnam as measured via EVI (enhanced vegetation index) from the NASA MODIS data product (MOD13Q1.V006). TSMx R script: # import packages library(dplyr) library(readr) library(ggplot2) library(tibble) library(tidyr) library(forcats) library(Kendall) options(warn = -1) # disable warnings # read data (.csv file with "Year" and "Value" columns) data <- read_csv("EVI.csv") # prepare row/column names for output matrices years <- data %>% pull("Year") r.names <- years[-length(years)] c.names <- years[-1] years <- years[-length(years)] # initialize output matrices sign.matrix <- matrix(data = NA, nrow = length(years), ncol = length(years)) pval.matrix <- matrix(data = NA, nrow = length(years), ncol = length(years)) slope.matrix <- matrix(data = NA, nrow = length(years), ncol = length(years)) # function to return remaining years given a start year getRemain <- function(start.year) { years <- data %>% pull("Year") start.ind <- which(data[["Year"]] == start.year) + 1 remain <- years[start.ind:length(years)] return (remain) } # function to subset data for a start/end year combination splitData <- function(end.year, start.year) { keep <- which(data[['Year']] >= start.year & data[['Year']] <= end.year) batch <- data[keep,] return(batch) } # function to fit linear regression and return slope direction fitReg <- function(batch) { trend <- lm(Value ~ Year, data = batch) slope <- coefficients(trend)[[2]] return(sign(slope)) } # function to fit linear regression and return slope magnitude fitRegv2 <- function(batch) { trend <- lm(Value ~ Year, data = batch) slope <- coefficients(trend)[[2]] return(slope) } # function to implement Mann-Kendall (MK) trend test and return significance # the test is implemented only for n>=8 getMann <- function(batch) { if (nrow(batch) >= 8) { mk <- MannKendall(batch[['Value']]) pval <- mk[['sl']] } else { pval <- NA } return(pval) } # function to return slope direction for all combinations given a start year getSign <- function(start.year) { remaining <- getRemain(start.year) combs <- lapply(remaining, splitData, start.year = start.year) signs <- lapply(combs, fitReg) return(signs) } # function to return MK significance for all combinations given a start year getPval <- function(start.year) { remaining <- getRemain(start.year) combs <- lapply(remaining, splitData, start.year = start.year) pvals <- lapply(combs, getMann) return(pvals) } # function to return slope magnitude for all combinations given a start year getMagn <- function(start.year) { remaining <- getRemain(start.year) combs <- lapply(remaining, splitData, start.year = start.year) magns <- lapply(combs, fitRegv2) return(magns) } # retrieve slope direction, MK significance, and slope magnitude signs <- lapply(years, getSign) pvals <- lapply(years, getPval) magns <- lapply(years, getMagn) # fill-in output matrices dimension <- nrow(sign.matrix) for (i in 1:dimension) { sign.matrix[i, i:dimension] <- unlist(signs[i]) pval.matrix[i, i:dimension] <- unlist(pvals[i]) slope.matrix[i, i:dimension] <- unlist(magns[i]) } sign.matrix <-...

All Comparisons of Differentially Expressed Genes - excel sheet containing the annotations and fold change values of the all the differentially expressed genes between the different clone comparisonsFinal List of Common Genes - excel sheet containing the list of genes that were commonly differentially expressed between all the aphid clone comparisons. Also contains table and bar chart presenting the number of times each candidate gene selected from previous literature was found in each aphid clone comparison.Non-direct and Direct Competition - excel sheet containing number of nymphs produced by all 6 clones on the 3 host plants in the non-direct competition, and the number of nymphs produced by the two clones NS and Viola in the direct competition experiment.sterror - excel sheet containing the means and standard error values of the 6 grouped resistant and susceptible clones in the non-direct competition experiment, used to make the bar plot for the non-direct competition experiment.sterror2 - excel sheet containing the means and standard error values of the resistant clone Viola and susceptible clone NS in the direct competition experiment, used to make the bar plot for the direct competition experiment.cabbagettest - excel sheet containing the number of nymphs produce by the 6 grouped resistant and susceptible clones on the 3 host plants, used to conduct the unpaired t tests to compare the reproductive performance of resistant and susceptible clones on the 3 different host plants when in not in competitiondirectcompetition - excel sheet containing the number of nymphs produce by the resistant clone Viola and susceptible clone NS on the 3 host plants, used to conduct the unpaired t tests comparing the reproductive performance of resistant and susceptible clones on the 3 different host plants when in direct competitionAPHID HOST SHIFT DISS Rscript - R script containing all my statistical tests: unpaired t tests of resistant and susceptible clones on the 3 host plants when in direct and non direct competition, and kruskal Wallis tests and post hoc Dunns test to identify significant differences between individual and resistant and susceptible clones on the different host plants. Also contains all my code for my bar charts for the non-direct and direct competition experiments and the code for my box plots showing the significant differences between individual clones and resistant and susceptible clones on the different host plants.Up and Down-regulated Genes Graph - excel sheet containing the number of and and down regulated genes in each aphid clone comparison and the bar graph generated from this data.

BackgroundTrachoma is a leading infectious cause of blindness and of significant public health concern targeted for elimination. This study aimed to systematically summarize the magnitude of active trachoma among children aged 1–9 in Ethiopia from 2019–2024.MethodsThe review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42024514026). Database searches were conducted on Google Scholar, SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, and Africans Journals Online (AJOL) for studies published between January 2019–31-March-2024 and with restriction to articles published only in English. Data extraction was done using a pre-prepared Excel sheet. STATA version 17 was used to perform the analysis. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I2 statistics and Cochrane Q. Qualitative synthesis was done to summarize the studies and random effect model was used to estimate the Pooled magnitude of active trachoma with a corresponding 95% confidence interval.ResultsA total of 17 studies with 19793 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled magnitude of active trachoma among children aged 1–9 years was found to be 18.4% (95% CI: 13.88, 22.91). We found a statistically significant heterogeneity between studies. Among the regions, Southwest region was found to have the highest magnitude (44.1%) (95%CI: 41.8%, 46.4%) and Dire Dawa was found to have the lowest (4.3%) (95%CI: 2.9%, 5.7%).ConclusionThe magnitude of active trachoma is still higher than the World Health Organization (WHO) target for elimination. There was significant interregional difference in magnitude of active trachoma. Strengthening surgical treatment for trichiasis, antibiotic therapy, facial hygiene, and environmental improvement (SAFE) strategy and health education and promotion is recommended.

's Average time of moving excl. commuting (Age 10 and over, female) is 26[minutes] which is the 38th highest in Japan (by Prefecture). Transition Graphs and Comparison chart between Toyama and Yamagata(Yamagata) and Akita(Akita)(Closest Prefecture in Population) are available. Various data can be downloaded and output in csv format for use in EXCEL free of charge.