CERES_EBAF_Edition4.2.1 is the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) and surface monthly means data in netCDF format Edition 4.2.1 data product. Data was collected using the CERES Scanner instruments on the Terra, Aqua, and NOAA-20 platforms for various periods. Data collection for this product is ongoing.CERES_EBAF_Edition4.2.1 data are monthly and climatological averages of TOA clear-sky (spatially complete) fluxes and all-sky fluxes, where the TOA net flux is constrained to the ocean heat storage. It also provides computed monthly mean surface radiative fluxes consistent with the CERES EBAF-TOA product and some basic cloud properties derived from colocated imagers. Cloud Radiative Effects are supplied at the TOA and surface, as determined using a cloud-free profile in the Fu-Liou Radiative Transfer Model (RTM). Observed fluxes are obtained using cloud properties derived from narrow-band imagers onboard both EOS Terra and Aqua satellites and NOAA-20, as well as geostationary satellites, to model the diurnal cycle of clouds. The computations are also based on meteorological assimilation data from the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) Versions 5.4.1 models. Unlike other CERES Level 3 clear-sky regional data sets that contain clear-sky data gaps, the clear-sky fluxes in the EBAF-TOA product are regionally complete. The EBAF-TOA product is the CERES project's best estimate of the fluxes based on all available satellite platforms and input data. CERES is a key component of the Earth Observing System (EOS) program. The CERES instruments provide radiometric measurements of the Earth's atmosphere from three broadband channels. The CERES missions follow the successful Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) mission. The first CERES instrument, the protoflight model (PFM), was launched on November 27, 1997, as part of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Two CERES instruments (FM1 and FM2) were launched into polar orbit on board the Earth Observing System (EOS) flagship Terra on December 18, 1999. Two additional CERES instruments (FM3 and FM4) were launched on board the Earth Observing System (EOS) Aqua on May 4, 2002. The CERES FM5 instrument was launched on board the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) satellite on October 28, 2011. The newest CERES instrument (FM6) was launched on board the Joint Polar-Orbiting Satellite System 1 (JPSS-1) satellite, now called NOAA-20, on November 18, 2017.

CERES_EBAF_Edition4.2 is the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) and surface monthly means data in netCDF format Edition 4.2 data product. Data was collected using the CERES Scanner instruments on the Terra, Aqua, and NOAA-20 platforms for various periods. Data collection for this product is ongoing.CERES_EBAF_Edition4.2 data are monthly and climatological averages of TOA clear-sky (spatially complete) fluxes and all-sky fluxes, where the TOA net flux is constrained to the ocean heat storage. It also provides computed monthly mean surface radiative fluxes consistent with the CERES EBAF-TOA product and some basic cloud properties derived from colocated imagers. Cloud Radiative Effects are provided at both the TOA and surface as determined using a cloud-free profile in the Fu-Liou Radiative Transfer Model (RTM). Observed fluxes are obtained using cloud properties derived from narrow-band imagers onboard both EOS Terra and Aqua satellites and NOAA-20, as well as geostationary satellites, to fully model the diurnal cycle of clouds. The computations are also based on meteorological assimilation data from the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) Versions 5.4.1 models. Unlike other CERES Level 3 clear-sky regional data sets that contain clear-sky data gaps, the clear-sky fluxes in the EBAF-TOA product are regionally complete. The EBAF-TOA product is the CERES project's best estimate of the fluxes based on all available satellite platforms and input data. CERES is a key Earth Observing System (EOS) program component. The CERES instruments provide radiometric measurements of the Earth's atmosphere from three broadband channels. The CERES missions follow the successful Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) mission. The first CERES instrument, the protoflight model (PFM), was launched on November 27, 1997, as part of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Two CERES instruments (FM1 and FM2) were launched into polar orbit on board the Earth Observing System (EOS) flagship Terra on December 18, 1999. Two additional CERES instruments (FM3 and FM4) were launched on board Earth Observing System (EOS) Aqua on May 4, 2002. The CERES FM5 instrument was launched on board the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) satellite on October 28, 2011. The newest CERES instrument (FM6) was launched on board the Joint Polar-Orbiting Satellite System 1 (JPSS-1) satellite, now called NOAA-20, on November 18, 2017.

The gender employment gap is defined as the difference between the employment rates of men and women aged 20-64. The employment rate is calculated by dividing the number of persons aged 20 to 64 in employment by the total population of the same age group. The indicator is based on the EU Labour Force Survey.

This study investigates the soil variability within the Northern Boreal Mountains Ecoprovince in British Columbia, with a particular focus on wetland soils and soil organic carbon mapping. Utilizing the BCSOIL2020 dataset and an array of environmental covariates, we employed Principal Component Analysis (PCA), k-means clustering, and conditioned Latin Hypercube Sampling (cLHS) to develop a comprehensive environmental covariate space. This approach allowed for the evaluation of the BCSOIL2020 dataset's representativeness of the current distribution of wetland soils and the generation of new, strategically placed sampling plots aimed at enhancing future research efforts. Through this methodology, the study identifies critical data gaps in existing datasets and proposes a methodological framework for improving soil mapping practices, thereby contributing to more informed resource management and conservation strategies.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) - Science Analytics and Synthesis (SAS) - Gap Analysis Project (GAP) manages the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), an Arc10x geodatabase, that includes a full inventory of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity and to other natural, recreation, historic, and cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/protected-areas). The PAD-US is developed in partnership with many organizations, including coordination groups at the [U.S.] Federal level, lead organizations for each State, and a number of national and other non-governmental organizations whose work is closely related to the PAD-US. Learn more about the USGS PAD-US partners program here: www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-data-stewards. The United Nations Environmental Program - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) tracks global progress toward biodiversity protection targets enacted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) available at: www.protectedplanet.net. See the Aichi Target 11 dashboard (www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/global-partnership-on-aichi-target-11) for official protection statistics recognized globally and developed for the CBD, or here for more information and statistics on the United States of America's protected areas: www.protectedplanet.net/country/USA. It is important to note statistics published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center (www.marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/dataanalysis/mpainventory/) and the USGS-GAP (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-statistics-and-reports) differ from statistics published by the UNEP-WCMC as methods to remove overlapping designations differ slightly and U.S. Territories are reported separately by the UNEP-WCMC (e.g. The largest MPA, "Pacific Remote Islands Marine Monument" is attributed to the United States Minor Outlying Islands statistics). At the time of PAD-US 2.1 publication (USGS-GAP, 2020), NOAA reported 26% of U.S. marine waters (including the Great Lakes) as protected in an MPA that meets the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definition of biodiversity protection (www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about). USGS-GAP plans to publish PAD-US 2.1 Statistics and Reports in the spring of 2021. The relationship between the USGS, the NOAA, and the UNEP-WCMC is as follows: - USGS manages and publishes the full inventory of U.S. marine and terrestrial protected areas data in the PAD-US representing many values, developed in collaboration with a partnership network in the U.S. and; - USGS is the primary source of U.S. marine and terrestrial protected areas data for the WDPA, developed from a subset of the PAD-US in collaboration with the NOAA, other agencies and non-governmental organizations in the U.S., and the UNEP-WCMC and; - UNEP-WCMC is the authoritative source of global protected area statistics from the WDPA and WD-OECM and; - NOAA is the authoritative source of MPA data in the PAD-US and MPA statistics in the U.S. and; - USGS is the authoritative source of PAD-US statistics (including areas primarily managed for biodiversity, multiple uses including natural resource extraction, and public access). The PAD-US 2.1 Combined Marine, Fee, Designation, Easement feature class (GAP Status Code 1 and 2 only) is the source of protected areas data in this WDPA update. Tribal areas and military lands represented in the PAD-US Proclamation feature class as GAP Status Code 4 (no known mandate for biodiversity protection) are not included as spatial data to represent internal protected areas are not available at this time. The USGS submitted more than 42,900 protected areas from PAD-US 2.1, including all 50 U.S. States and 6 U.S. Territories, to the UNEP-WCMC for inclusion in the May 2021 WDPA, available at www.protectedplanet.net. The NOAA is the sole source of MPAs in PAD-US and the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, www.conservationeasement.us/) is the source of conservation easements. The USGS aggregates authoritative federal lands data directly from managing agencies for PAD-US (www.communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/), while a network of State data-stewards provide state, local government lands, and some land trust preserves. National nongovernmental organizations contribute spatial data directly (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-data-stewards). The USGS translates the biodiversity focused subset of PAD-US into the WDPA schema (UNEP-WCMC, 2019) for efficient aggregation by the UNEP-WCMC. The USGS maintains WDPA Site Identifiers (WDPAID, WDPA_PID), a persistent identifier for each protected area, provided by UNEP-WCMC. Agency partners are encouraged to track WDPA Site Identifier values in source datasets to improve the efficiency and accuracy of PAD-US and WDPA updates. The IUCN protected areas in the U.S. are managed by thousands of agencies and organizations across the country and include over 42,900 designated sites such as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, some State Parks, State Wildlife Management Areas, Local Nature Preserves, City Natural Areas, The Nature Conservancy and other Land Trust Preserves, and Conservation Easements. The boundaries of these protected places (some overlap) are represented as polygons in the PAD-US, along with informative descriptions such as Unit Name, Manager Name, and Designation Type. As the WDPA is a global dataset, their data standards (UNEP-WCMC 2019) require simplification to reduce the number of records included, focusing on the protected area site name and management authority as described in the Supplemental Information section in this metadata record. Given the numerous organizations involved, sites may be added or removed from the WDPA between PAD-US updates. These differences may reflect actual change in protected area status; however, they also reflect the dynamic nature of spatial data or Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Many agencies and non-governmental organizations are working to improve the accuracy of protected area boundaries, the consistency of attributes, and inventory completeness between PAD-US updates. In addition, USGS continually seeks partners to review and refine the assignment of conservation measures in the PAD-US.

This is series-level metadata for the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) data released by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). PAD-US is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas. Starting with version 1.4 PAD-US was identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://ngda-cadastre-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g. 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling "best available" data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The PAD-US geodatabase maps and describes areas using thirty-six attributes and five separate feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. An additional Combined feature class includes the full PAD-US inventory to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the Combined layer allows users to extract data types as needed. A Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table facilitates the extraction of authoritative federal data provided or recommended by managing agencies from the Combined PAD-US inventory. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/protected-areas/. For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/pad-us-data-history for more information): - Current Version - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B - Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT - Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE - Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ - Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD - Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov) - Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov) - First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov) Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.

Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) provides high resolution, statewide data regarding the connected network of hubs, corridors, and gaps throughout the state. For the purposes of the MD GIA, hubs were defined as large contiguous blocks of forests and wetlands, corridors are defined as linear features connecting hubs that enable animals and plant propagules to move between hubs, and gaps are defined as areas within corridors that are not currently part of the optimal natural land use type(s).

The original GIA was completed in 2003, and included mapping of hubs and corridors using 30m resolution Landsat landcover landuse data. GIA hubs were updated in 2010, using newer Landsat data, however corridors were not remapped at that time. This current update to the MD GIA dataset leverages the Chesapeake Conservancy’s 2017/2018 1m Land Use Land Cover (LCLU) dataset. This update provides the most up to date, high resolution green infrastructure data possible for the state. This data set also contains several improvements, including a more detailed break down of 3 hub types (forest, wetland, aquatic), 2 corridor types (forest and aquatic), and 3 corridor and gap statuses (natural corridor, restorable gap, non-restorable gap).Feature Serivce link: https://mdgeodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/Biota/MD_GreenInfrastructure/FeatureServer

This table describes gender pay gap and is defined as the ratio of the gross earnings between women and men. The disaggregation variables are subject to data availability and where the numbers are lesser than 6, the disaggregation will be dropped.

Find more Pacific data on PDH.stat.

The area covered by lidar at both time periods is reported with the proportion of initial gap area, proportion of final gap area, and the proportion of the amount of final gap area newly formed between samples for both the dynamic gap definition (10 m height cutoff) and the Brokaw (1982) gap definition (2 m height cutoff) for a minimum gap area of 10 m2. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to compare the distributions of gap sizes between years for each site by definition.Frequency of gap formation presented for both sites and gap definitions.

The zoning plan (BPL) contains the legally binding stipulations for the urban planning order. In principle, the development plan must be developed from the land use plan. The available data are the development plan ‘Gap and mountain - amendment of written stipulations of the overall area’ of the municipality of Obrigheim from XPlanung 5.0. Description: Residential area, mixed area, special area.

Data Download: The Secured Areas 2024 dataset is also available as an ESRI polygon geodatabase dataset.The secured areas dataset shows public and private lands that are permanently secured against conversion to development, GAP 1-3, through fee ownership, easements, or permanent conservation restrictions. It also includes a set of more temporary easement and GAP 4 open space lands not permanently secured for nature conservation. TNC compiled these data from state, federal, and private sources and assigned a GAP Status and other standard attribute fields to the best of our ability. The Secured Areas dataset is a TNC product created primarily for estimating current extent and status of secured lands with a conservation focus, GAP 1-3. The non GAP 1-3 lands are less comprehensively mapped given the lack of their inclusion in some primary source datasets, but they are included as available in our source datasets. Any updates, corrections, or discrepancies with respect to official versions of source federal, state, or local protected areas databases should be viewed as provisional until such time as such changes have been reviewed and accepted by the official data stewards for those other protected areas databases.GAP STATUS GAP status is a classification developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to reflect the intent of the landowner or easement holder. GAP 1 and 2 are commonly thought of as “protected” for nature", while GAP 3 are “multiple-use” lands. Other temporary conservation easement lands and/or protected open space without a conservation value or intent are assigned GAP 4. (Citation: Crist, P.J., B. Thompson, T. C. Edwards, C. G. Homer, S. D. Bassett. 1998. Mapping and Categorizing Land Stewardship. A Handbook for Conducting Gap Analysis.) In addition to GAP 1-3 lands, in our TNC secured areas product we classified six additional classes of open space lands (permanent agricultural easements, temporary conservation easements, temporary agricultural easements, urban parks, state board lands, other GAP 4 lands). The following definitions guided our assignment of lands into the following nine classes:TNC CLASS CODE (fields TNCCLASS, TNCCLASS_D)1 = GAP 1: Permanently Secured for Nature and Natural Processes. Managed for biodiversity with all natural processes, little to no human intervention. Primary intention of the owner or easement holder is for biodiversity, nature protection, natural diversity, and natural processes. Land and water managed through natural processes including disturbances with little or no human intervention.Examples: wilderness area, some national parks2 = GAP 2 = Permanently Secured for Nature with Management: Managed for biodiversity, with hands on management or interventions. Primary intention of the owner or easement holder is for biodiversity conservation, nature protection, and natural diversity. Land and water managed for natural biodiversity conservation, but may include some hands on manipulation or suppression of disturbance and natural processes. Examples: national wildlife refuges, areas of critical environmental concern, inventoried roadless areas, some natural areas and preserves3 = GAP 3: Permanently Secured for Multiple Uses, including nature: Primary intention of the owner or easement holder for multiple uses. Strong focus on recreational use, game species production, timber production, grazing and other uses in additional to these lands providing some biodiversity value. May include extractive uses of a broad, low-intensity type (e.g. some logging. grazing) or of a localized intense type (e.g. mining, military artillery testing area, public access beach area within large natural state park). Examples: recreation focused protected areas such as state parks, state recreation areas, wildlife management areas, gamelands, state and national forests, local conservation lands with primary focus on recreational use.38 = State Board Lands and State Trust Lands: Lands in western and some southern states that are owned by the state and prevented from being developed, but which are managed to produce long term sustained revenue for the state’s educational system. These lands were separated from other protected multiple use lands in GAP 3. Most of these lands are subject to timber extraction and management for profitable forest product production. Some also have agricultural use and revenue generated from grazing and/or agricultural production leasing. These lands are not specifically managed for biodiversity values, and some are occasionally sold in periodic auctions by the state for revenue generation. Note this type of land is most commonly assigned GAP 3 in the PAD-US GAP classification.39 = Permanent Agricultural Easements: Conservation land where the primary intent is the preservation of farmland. Land is in a permanent agricultural easement or an easement to maintain grass cover. The land will not be converted to a built or paved development. Example: vegetable farm with permanent easement to prevent development. Note this type of land would be assigned GAP 4 in the PAD-US GAP classification.4 = GAP 4: Areas with no known mandate for permanent biodiversity protection. Municipal lands and other protected open space (e.g. town commons, historic parks) where the intention in management and the use of the open space is not for permanent biodiversity values. It was beyond our capacity to comprehensively compile these GAP 4 lands, and as such, they are included only where source data made it feasible to easily incorporate them. 5 = Temporary Natural Easements: Note this type of land would be assigned GAP 4 in the PAD-US GAP classification.6 = Temporary Agricultural Easements: Note this type of land would be assigned GAP 4 in the PAD-US GAP classification.9 = Urban Parks: While unlikely to have biodiversity value, urban parks provide important places for recreation and open space for people. We went through and identified parks whose name is recreation based (i.e. Playground, Community garden, Golf, fields, baseball, soccer, Mini, school, elementary, Triangle, Pool, Aquatic, Sports, Pool, Athletic, Pocket, Splash, Skate, Dog, Cemetery, Boat). Note this type of land would be assigned GAP 4 in the PAD-US GAP classification.OWNERSHIP DEFINITIONSThe type of owner or interest holder for each polygon was assigned to a set of simple reporting categories as follows (see fields = Fee_Own_T and InterstH_T )TVA -Tennessee Valley Authority, BLM -Bureau of Land Management, , BOR- Bureau of Reclamation, FWS - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, UFS - Forest Service, DOD - Department of Defense, ACE - Army Corps of Engineers , DOE - Department of Energy, NPS - National Park Service, NRC - Natural Resources Conservation Service, FED – Federal Other, TRB - American Indian Lands, SPR - State Park and Recreation , SDC - State Department of Conservation, SLB - State Land Board , SFW - State Fish and Wildlife, SNR - State Department of Natural Resources, STL -State Department of Land, STA - Other or Unknown State Land, REG - Regional Agency Land, LOC – Local Government (City, County), NGO - Non-Governmental Organization, PVT- Private, JNT - Joint , OTH- Other , UNK - UnknownPROTECTION TYPE DEFINITIONS: (see field PRO_TYPE_D)DesignationEasementEasement and DesignationFeeFee and DesignationFee and EasementFee, Easement, and DesignationDATA SOURCES: The 2024 CONUS Secured Areas dataset was compiled by TNC from multiple sources. These include state, federal, and other non-profit and land trust data. The primarily datasets are listed below. 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2022. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B.) Downloaded 1/10/2024 Note this dataset was used as the primary source outside of the Northeast 13 states. For the Northeast states, please see more detailed source information below.2. National Conservation Easement Database (NCED) https://www.conservationeasement.us/ Downloaded 1/12/2024. Note this dataset was used outside the Northeast 13 states. For Northeast states, please see more detailed source information below. 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Easements. 2024. Downloaded 1/12/2024 https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/4. Conservation Science Partners, Inc. 2024. Wild and Scenic River corridor areas. Dataset compiled by Conservation Science Partners, Inc. for American Rivers as of 2/14/2024 (per. Communication Lise Comte , Conservation Science Partners, Inc. 2/14/2024)5. The Nature Conservancy. 2024. TNC Lands. Downloaded 3/1/2024.6. The Nature Conservancy Center for Resilient Conservation Science. 2021. Military Lands of the Southeast United States. Extracted from Secured areas spatial database (CONUS) 2021. https://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e033e6bf6069459592903a04797b8b07.7. The Nature Conservancy Center for Resilient Conservation Science. 2022. Northeast States Secured Areas. https://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=fb80d71d5aa74a91a25e55b6f1810574

Introduction

Welcome to the Saudi Arabian Arabic Language Visual Speech Dataset! This dataset is a collection of diverse, single-person unscripted spoken videos supporting research in visual speech recognition, emotion detection, and multimodal communication.

Dataset Content

This visual speech dataset contains 1000 videos in Saudi Arabian Arabic language each paired with a corresponding high-fidelity audio track. Each participant is answering a specific question in a video in an unscripted and spontaneous nature.

Video Data

While recording each video extensive guidelines are kept in mind to maintain the quality and diversity.

Metadata

The dataset provides comprehensive metadata for each video recording and participant:

This database that can be used for macro-level analysis of road accidents on interurban roads in Europe. Through the variables it contains, road accidents can be explained using variables related to economic resources invested in roads, traffic, road network, socioeconomic characteristics, legislative measures and meteorology. This repository contains the data used for the analysis carried out in the papers: 1. Calvo-Poyo F., Navarro-Moreno J., de Oña J. (2020) Road Investment and Traffic Safety: An International Study. Sustainability 12:6332. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166332 2. Navarro-Moreno J., Calvo-Poyo F., de Oña J. (2022) Influence of road investment and maintenance expenses on injured traffic crashes in European roads. Int J Sustain Transp 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2022.2082344 3. Navarro-Moreno, J., Calvo-Poyo, F., de Oña, J. (2022) Investment in roads and traffic safety: linked to economic development? A European comparison. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22567 The file with the database is available in excel. DATA SOURCES The database presents data from 1998 up to 2016 from 20 european countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. Crash data were obtained from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) [2], which offers enough level of disaggregation between crashes occurring inside versus outside built-up areas. With reference to the data on economic resources invested in roadways, deserving mention –given its extensive coverage—is the database of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), managed by the International Transport Forum (ITF) [1], which collects data on investment in the construction of roads and expenditure on their maintenance, following the definitions of the United Nations System of National Accounts (2008 SNA). Despite some data gaps, the time series present consistency from one country to the next. Moreover, to confirm the consistency and complete missing data, diverse additional sources, mainly the national Transport Ministries of the respective countries were consulted. All the monetary values were converted to constant prices in 2015 using the OECD price index. To obtain the rest of the variables in the database, as well as to ensure consistency in the time series and complete missing data, the following national and international sources were consulted: Eurostat [3] Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE). European Union [4] The World Bank [5] World Health Organization (WHO) [6] European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) [7] European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO) [8] European Climatic Energy Mixes (ECEM) of the Copernicus Climate Change [9] EU BestPoint-Project [10] Ministerstvo dopravy, República Checa [11] Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur, Alemania [12] Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, Países Bajos [13] National Statistics Office, Malta [14] Ministério da Economia e Transição Digital, Portugal [15] Ministerio de Fomento, España [16] Trafikverket, Suecia [17] Ministère de l’environnement de l’énergie et de la mer, Francia [18] Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Italia [19–25] Statistisk sentralbyrå, Noruega [26-29] Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Portugal [30] Infraestruturas de Portugal S.A., Portugal [31–35] Road Safety Authority (RSA), Ireland [36] DATA BASE DESCRIPTION The database was made trying to combine the longest possible time period with the maximum number of countries with complete dataset (some countries like Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta and Norway were eliminated from the definitive dataset owing to a lack of data or breaks in the time series of records). Taking into account the above, the definitive database is made up of 19 variables, and contains data from 20 countries during the period between 1998 and 2016. Table 1 shows the coding of the variables, as well as their definition and unit of measure. Table. Database metadata Code Variable and unit fatal_pc_km Fatalities per billion passenger-km fatal_mIn Fatalities per million inhabitants accid_adj_pc_km Accidents per billion passenger-km p_km Billions of passenger-km croad_inv_km Investment in roads construction per kilometer, €/km (2015 constant prices) croad_maint_km Expenditure on roads maintenance per kilometer €/km (2015 constant prices) prop_motorwa Proportion of motorways over the total road network (%) populat Population, in millions of inhabitants unemploy Unemployment rate (%) petro_car Consumption of gasolina and petrol derivatives (tons), per tourism alcohol Alcohol consumption, in liters per capita (age > 15) mot_index Motorization index, in cars per 1,000 inhabitants den_populat Population density, inhabitants/km² cgdp Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in € (2015 constant prices) cgdp_cap GDP per capita, in € (2015 constant prices) precipit Average depth of rain water during a year (mm) prop_elder Proportion of people over 65 years (%) dps Demerit Point System, dummy variable (0: no; 1: yes) freight Freight transport, in billions of ton-km ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This database was carried out in the framework of the project “Inversión en carreteras y seguridad vial: un análisis internacional (INCASE)”, financed by: FEDER/Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades–Agencia Estatal de Investigación/Proyecto RTI2018-101770-B-I00, within Spain´s National Program of R+D+i Oriented to Societal Challenges. Moreover, the authors would like to express their gratitude to the Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda of Spain (MITMA), and the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure of Germany (BMVI) for providing data for this study. REFERENCES 1. International Transport Forum OECD iLibrary | Transport infrastructure investment and maintenance. 2. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE Statistical Database Available online: https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb2015/pxweb/en/STAT/STAT_40-TRTRANS/?rxid=18ad5d0d-bd5e-476f-ab7c-40545e802eeb (accessed on Apr 28, 2020). 3. European Commission Database - Eurostat Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed on Apr 28, 2021). 4. Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. European Commission EU Transport in figures - Statistical Pocketbooks Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en (accessed on Apr 28, 2021). 5. World Bank Group World Bank Open Data | Data Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on Apr 30, 2021). 6. World Health Organization (WHO) WHO Global Information System on Alcohol and Health Available online: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.GISAH?lang=en (accessed on Apr 29, 2021). 7. European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) Traffic Law Enforcement across the EU - Tackling the Three Main Killers on Europe’s Roads; Brussels, Belgium, 2011; 8. Copernicus Climate Change Service Climate data for the European energy sector from 1979 to 2016 derived from ERA-Interim Available online: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/sis-european-energy-sector?tab=overview (accessed on Apr 29, 2021). 9. Klipp, S.; Eichel, K.; Billard, A.; Chalika, E.; Loranc, M.D.; Farrugia, B.; Jost, G.; Møller, M.; Munnelly, M.; Kallberg, V.P.; et al. European Demerit Point Systems : Overview of their main features and expert opinions. EU BestPoint-Project 2011, 1–237. 10. Ministerstvo dopravy Serie: Ročenka dopravy; Ročenka dopravy; Centrum dopravního výzkumu: Prague, Czech Republic; 11. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur Verkehr in Zahlen 2003/2004; Hamburg, Germany, 2004; ISBN 3871542946. 12. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur Verkehr in Zahlen 2018/2019. In Verkehrsdynamik; Flensburg, Germany, 2018 ISBN 9783000612947. 13. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat Rijksjaarverslag 2018 a Infrastructuurfonds; The Hague, Netherlands, 2019; ISBN 0921-7371. 14. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu Rijksjaarverslag 2014 a Infrastructuurfonds; The Hague, Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 0921- 7371. 15. Ministério da Economia e Transição Digital Base de Dados de Infraestruturas - GEE Available online: https://www.gee.gov.pt/pt/publicacoes/indicadores-e-estatisticas/base-de-dados-de-infraestruturas (accessed on Apr 29, 2021). 16. Ministerio de Fomento. Dirección General de Programación Económica y Presupuestos. Subdirección General de Estudios Económicos y Estadísticas Serie: Anuario estadístico; NIPO 161-13-171-0; Centro de Publicaciones. Secretaría General Técnica. Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain; 17. Trafikverket The Swedish Transport Administration Annual report: 2017; 2018; ISBN 978-91-7725-272-6. 18. Ministère de l’Équipement, du T. et de la M. Mémento de statistiques des transports 2003; Ministère de l’environnement de l’énergie et de la mer, 2005; 19. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Conto Nazionale delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Anno 2000; Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: Roma, Italy, 2001; 20. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Conto nazionale dei trasporti 1999. 2000. 21. Generale, D.; Informativi, S. delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Anno 2004. 22. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Conto Nazionale delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Anno 2001; 2002; 23. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei

Context

"The gender wage gap is defined as the difference between median earnings of men and women relative to median earnings of men. Data refer to full-time employees on the one hand and to self-employed on the other."

OECD (2022), Gender wage gap (indicator). doi: 10.1787/7cee77aa-en (Accessed on 10 March 2022)

Content

Table with Gender wage gap data.

Acknowledgements

OECD (2022), Gender wage gap (indicator). doi: 10.1787/7cee77aa-en (Accessed on 10 March 2022)

https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm

Inspiration

The disparity of male/female on Kaggle that will be reproduced on kagglers professional lives.

AbstractForests of Australia (2023) is a continental spatial dataset of forest extent, by national forest categories and types, assembled for Australia's State of the Forests Report. It was developed from multiple forest, vegetation and land cover data inputs, including contributions from Australian, state and territory government agencies and external sources.A forest is defined in this dataset as "An area, incorporating all living and non-living components, that is dominated by trees having usually a single stem and a mature or potentially mature stand height exceeding two metres and with existing or potential crown cover of overstorey strata about equal to or greater than 20 per cent. This includes Australia's diverse native forests and plantations, regardless of age. It is also sufficiently broad to encompass areas of trees that are sometimes described as woodlands".The dataset was compiled by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) for the National Forest Inventory (NFI), a collaborative partnership between the Australian and state and territory governments. The role of the NFI is to collate, integrate and communicate information on Australia's forests. State and territory government agencies collect forest data using independent methods and at varying scales or resolutions. The NFI applies a national classification to state and territory data to allow seamless integration of these datasets. Multiple independent sources of external data are used to fill data gaps and improve the quality of the final dataset.The NFI classifies forests into three national forest categories (Native Forest, Commercial plantation, and other forest) and then into various forest types. Commercial plantations presented in this dataset were sourced from the National Plantation Inventory (NPI) spatial dataset (2021), also produced by ABARES.Another dataset produced by ABARES, the Catchment scale land use of Australia CLUM dataset (2020), was used to identify and mask out land uses that are inappropriate to map as forest.The Forests of Australia (2023) dataset is produced to fulfil requirements of Australia's National Forest Policy Statement and the Regional Forests Agreement Act 2002 (Cwth) and is used by the Australian Government for domestic and international reporting.Previous versions of this dataset are available on the Forests Australia website spatial data page and the Australian Government open government data portaldata.gov.au.CurrencyDate modified: 30 November 2023Modification frequency: Every 5 yearsData extentSpatial extentNorth: -8.2°South: -44.4°East: 157.2°West: 109.5°Source informationData, Metadata, Maps and Interactive views are available from ABARES website.Forests of Australia (2023) – Descriptive metadata.The data was obtained from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES). ABARES is providing this data to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.Lineage statementPresented on this page is a summarised lineage on the development of state and territory datasets for Forests of Australia (2023). The dataset has been produced using the Multiple Lines of Evidence (MLE) method for publication in the Australia’s State of the Forests Report – 2023 update. Detailed lineage information can be found here.Forests of Australia (2023) is a continental spatial dataset of forest extent, by national forest categories and types, assembled for Australia's State of the Forests Report – 2023 update. It was developed from multiple forest, vegetation and land cover data inputs, including contributions from Australian, state and territory government agencies and external sources.For each state or territory, except for the ACT where there was no new data, intersection of the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset with a forest cover dataset supplied by the jurisdiction, and with other available and appropriate independent forest cover datasets, identified:High confidence areas – areas where all the examined datasets agreed with the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset that the areas were forest or non-forest. No further assessment was required for these areas.Moderate confidence areas – areas where the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset agreed with the forest cover dataset supplied by state or territory, and with external or independent datasets, that the areas were forest or non-forest. These areas were identified as potential errors and needed further analysis in order to determine the correct allocation (forest or non-forest). The required analyses and validation were conducted by ABARES, in consultation with relevant state and territory agencies, using various ancillary data including high-resolution imagery such as World Imagery by ESRI, Bing Maps and Google Earth Pro.Low confidence areas – areas where the Forests of Australia (2018) dataset disagreed with the forest cover dataset supplied by state or territory, and with external or independent datasets, that the areas were forest or non-forest. All such areas were identified as potential errors and needed further analysis in order to determine the correct allocation (forest or non-forest). The required analyses and validation were conducted by ABARES, in consultation with relevant state and territory agencies, using various ancillary data including high-resolution imagery such as World Imagery by ESRI, Bing Maps and Google Earth Pro.External or independent datasets used include:H_Woody_Fuzzy_2_Class dataset is based on the NGGI dataset produced by DCCEEW from Landsat data and was developed to support New South Wales Natural Resources Commission’s (NRC) Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Program. NRC applied Fuzzy Logic and Probability modelling to the NGGI dataset to derive annual layers distinguishing between forest and non-forest at 25 m raster resolution. Each of five annual layers, 2015 to 2019, was resampled to a 100 m raster by classifying as forest the 100 m pixels that had more than half their area as forest as determined from 25 m pixels. The five annual layers were combined and every pixel in the combination that had been classified as forest in any year during 2015-2019 period was allocated as forest (and the balance non-forest). This approach was taken to prevent areas where the crown cover had reduced temporarily below 20%, through events such as fire, harvesting, drought or disease, from being incorrectly classified as non-forest.State-wide Land and Tree Study (SLATS) dataset is based on data collected by the Landsat satellite. This dataset was available for Queensland only. Foliage Projective Cover (FPC) values of 11 or greater (equivalent to crown cover 20% or greater) were considered as forest candidates in this SLATS dataset. The National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) version 6.0 dataset was used to identify areas in this SLATS dataset that met the height requirements of the forest definition used by the National Forest Inventory.The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) dataset is produced from Landsat satellite Thematic Mapper™, Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) and Operational Land Image (OLI) images for the Australian Government Department of the Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), and identifies woody vegetation of height or potential height greater than 2 metres, crown cover greater than 20%, and with a minimum patch size of 0.2 hectares (DISER, 2021a) . The dataset is compiled using time-series data since 1972 and is produced at a 25 m × 25 m resolution. The NGGI dataset used was developed from the five annual layers (2016-2020, inclusive) from the ‘National Forest and sparse woody vegetation data (Version 5.0) spatial dataset produced using the algorithms for land-use change allocation developed for the National Inventory Reports (DISER, 2021b). Each layer of the original 25 m resolution, three-class (forest, sparse woody and non-forest) dataset was resampled to a binary (forest and non-forest) 100 m raster by classifying as forest the 100 m pixels that had more than half their area as forest; the sparse woody and non-forest classes were combined into a non-forest class. The five annual layers were then combined and every pixel in the combination that had been classified as forest in any year during 2016-2020 period was allocated as forest (and the balance non-forest). This approach was taken to prevent areas where the crown cover had reduced temporarily below 20%, through events such as fire, harvesting, drought or disease, from being incorrectly classified as non-forest.All input datasets were converted to 100m rasters (ESRI GRID format), aligning with relevant standard NFI state or territory masks (also known as NFI SNAP grids), in Albers projection. Where the input dataset was in polygon format, the Polygon to Raster tool was used to convert the polygon dataset to raster format, using the Maximum_Combined_Area option.Validation assessment results were incorporated to give improved and high-confidence forest cover datasets for each state or territory.Look-up tables translating the state or territory forest cover data to NFI forest types were used where provided. Where this information was not provided, it was derived by ABARES from translating Levels 5 and 6 of the National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) version 6.0 attribute information to NFI forest types.This dataset has been converted from GeoTIFF to Multidimensional Cloud Raster Format (CRF) to facilitate publishing to the Digital Atlas of Australia (DAA).Date of extraction: February 2024.Data dictionaryAttribute nameDescriptionVALUEIdentifier of every unique combination of the following attributes: STATE, FOR_SOURCE, FOR_CODE, FOR_TYPE, FOR_CAT, HEIGHT and COVER.COUNTNumber of cells that belong to a particular VALUE. For this dataset, in which cell resolution is 100 by 100 metres.

Here we used remote sensing data from multiple sources (time-series of Landsat and Sentinel images) to map the impervious surface area (ISA) at five-year intervals from 1990 to 2015, and then converted the results into a standardized dataset of the built-up area for 433 Chinese cities with 300,000 inhabitants or more, which were listed in the United Nations (UN) World Urbanization Prospects (WUP) database (including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan). We employed a range of spectral indices to generate the 1990–2015 ISA maps in urban areas based on remotely sensed data acquired from multiple sources. In this process, various types of auxiliary data were used to create the desired products for urban areas through manual segmentation of peri-urban and rural areas together with reference to several freely available products of urban extent derived from ISA data using automated urban–rural segmentation methods. After that, following the well-established rules adopted by the UN, we carried out the conversion to the standardized built-up area products from the 1990–2015 ISA maps in urban areas, which conformed to the definition of urban agglomeration area (UAA). Finally, we implemented data postprocessing to guarantee the spatial accuracy and temporal consistency of the final product.The standardized urban built-up area dataset (SUBAD–China) introduced here is the first product using the same definition of UAA adopted by the WUP database for 433 county and higher-level cities in China. The comparisons made with contemporary data produced by the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the World Bank and UN-habitat indicate that our results have a high spatial accuracy and good temporal consistency and thus can be used to characterize the process of urban expansion in China.The SUBAD–China contains 2,598 vector files in shapefile format containing data for all China's cities listed in the WUP database that have different urban sizes and income levels with populations over 300,000. Attached with it, we also provided the distribution of validation points for the 1990–2010 ISA products of these 433 Chinese cities in shapefile format and the confusion matrices between classified data and reference data during different time periods as a Microsoft Excel Open XML Spreadsheet (XLSX) file.Furthermore, The standardized built-up area products for such cities will be consistently updated and refined to ensure the quality of their spatiotemporal coverage and accuracy. The production of this dataset together with the usage of population counts derived from the WUP database will close some of the data gaps in the calculation of SDG11.3.1 and benefit other downstream applications relevant to a combined analysis of the spatial and socio-economic domains in urban areas.

The Maryland Habitat Connectivity Network (HCN) provides high resolution, statewide data regarding the connected network of hubs, corridors, and gaps throughout the state. For the purposes of the MD HCN, hubs were defined as large contiguous blocks of forests and wetlands, corridors are defined as linear features connecting hubs that enable animals and plant propagules to move between hubs, and gaps are defined as areas within corridors that are not currently part of the optimal natural land use type(s).

The Maryland Habitat Connectivity Network (HCN) was formerly referred to as Maryland's Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA). The original GIA was completed in 2003, and included mapping of hubs and corridors using 30m resolution Landsat landcover landuse data. GIA hubs were updated in 2010, using newer Landsat data, however corridors were not remapped at that time.

This current update to the MD HCN dataset leverages the Chesapeake Conservancy’s 2017/2018 1m Land Use Land Cover (LCLU) dataset. This update provides the most up to date, high resolution green infrastructure data possible for the state. This data set also contains several improvements, including a more detailed breakdown of 3 hub types (forest, wetland, aquatic), 2 corridor types (forest and aquatic), and 3 corridor and gap statuses (natural corridor, restorable gap, non-restorable gap).

***Please note, the MD Habitat Corridor Network is simply a renaming of the Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment. The data represented in the HCN is the same data contained in the most recent update to the MD GIA.Maryland's Habitat Connectivity Network is a network of undeveloped lands that provide the bulk of the state's natural support system. Ecosystem services, such as cleaning the air, filtering water, storing and cycling nutrients, conserving soils, regulating climate, and maintaining hydrologic function, are all provided by the existing expanses of forests, wetlands, and other natural lands. These ecologically valuable lands also provide marketable goods and services, like forest products, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Maryland’s Green Infrastructure serves as vital habitat for wild species and contributes in many ways to the health and quality of life for Maryland residents. To identify and prioritize Maryland's green infrastructure, the Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) was developed. The GIA was developed using principles of landscape ecology and conservation biology, and provides a consistent approach to evaluating land conservation and restoration efforts in Maryland. It specifically attempts to recognize: a variety of natural resource values (as opposed to a single species of wildlife, for example), how a given place fits into a larger system, the ecological importance of natural open space in rural and developed areas, the importance of coordinating local, state and even interstate planning, and the need for a regional or landscape-level view for wildlife conservation. Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) provides high resolution, statewide data regarding the connected network of hubs, corridors, and gaps throughout the state. For the purposes of the MD GIA, hubs were defined as large contiguous blocks of forests and wetlands, corridors are defined as linear features connecting hubs that enable animals and plant propagules to move between hubs, and gaps are defined as areas within corridors that are not currently part of the optimal natural land use type(s). The original GIA was completed in 2003, and included mapping of hubs and corridors using 30m resolution Landsat landcover landuse data. GIA hubs were updated in 2010, using newer Landsat data, however corridors were not remapped at that time. This current update to the MD GIA dataset leverages the Chesapeake Conservancy’s 2017/2018 1m Land Use Land Cover (LCLU) dataset. This update provides the most up to date, high resolution green infrastructure data possible for the state. The Maryland GIA, includes mapping and differentiation of 3 types of hubs: forest, wetland, and aquatic. For the most recent update, forest hubs are defined as large contiguous blocks of forests that are a minimum of 50 acres in size and containing a minimum of 10 acres of contiguous interior forest. Wetlands hubs are defined as contiguous patches of wetlands that are a minimum of 50 acres in size. Aquatic hubs include waterways that meet specific ecological criteria, including those located in Tier II catchments, HUC 12 watersheds with trout, or those with Anadromous fish spawning segments. This recent update also includes mapping and differentiation of both forest and aquatic corridors. Mapping of corridors was done in 3 major steps. First, forest and aquatic cost rasters were created based on various relevant ecological variables that represent the cost for wildlife to move through each pixel across the landscape. Then, the “Optimal Regions Tool” in ArcGIS was used to manually identify the shortest, least cost path between each set of hub areas. Finally, these least cost paths were buffered by 550 feet to create corridor areas. Corridors generally follow the best ecological or "most natural" routes between hubs. Typically these are streams with wide riparian buffers and healthy fish communities. Other good wildlife corridors include ridge lines or forested valleys. Developed areas, major roads, and other unsuitable features were avoided. Finally, this updated dataset provides a detailed breakdown of land within green infrastructure corridors. Forest and aquatic corridors are broken into 3 categories, natural corridors, restorable gaps, and non-restorable gaps. Natural corridors are defined as natural land use classes that provide the lowest cost for wildlife movement. Restorable gaps are land use classes that are not currently optimal for animal movement, but that could be good candidates for restoration, such as low vegetation and shrub scrub areas. Non-Restorable Corridors are land use classes wildlife avoid/pass through quickly, and that can not be easily restored, such as impervious surfaces, roads, or buildings. The Green Infrastructure Assessment was developed to provide decision support for Maryland's Department of Natural Resources land conservation programs. Methods used to identify and rank green infrastructure lands are intended solely for this use. Other applications are at the discretion of the user. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources is not responsible for any inaccuracies in the data and does not necessarily endorse any uses or products derived from the data other than those for which the data were originally intended. Please to the Green Infrastructure web site (https://dnr.maryland.gov/land/Pages/Green-Infrastructure.aspx) for additional information. More information can also be found on the DNR Greenprint Webmap (https://geodata.md.gov/greenprint/) Credits: DNR, Chesapeake Conservancy MD, iMAP, Rachel Marks (rachel.marks@maryland.gov)Subject: Habitat Connectivity Network - Hubs, Corridors, and Gapshttps://mdgeodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/Biota/MD_HabitatConnectivityNetwork/FeatureServer/0

DEEPEN stands for DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments. As part of the development of the DEEPEN 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) methodology for magmatic plays (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical), weights needed to be developed for use in the weighted sum of the different favorability index models produced from geoscientific exploration datasets. This was done using two different approaches: one based on expert opinions, and one based on statistical learning. This GDR submission includes the datasets used to produce the statistical learning-based weights. While expert opinions allow us to include more nuanced information in the weights, expert opinions are subject to human bias. Data-centric or statistical approaches help to overcome these potential human biases by focusing on and drawing conclusions from the data alone. The drawback is that, to apply these types of approaches, a dataset is needed. Therefore, we attempted to build comprehensive standardized datasets mapping anomalies in each exploration dataset to each component of each play. This data was gathered through a literature review focused on magmatic hydrothermal plays along with well-characterized areas where superhot or supercritical conditions are thought to exist. Datasets were assembled for all three play types, but the hydrothermal dataset is the least complete due to its relatively low priority. For each known or assumed resource, the dataset states what anomaly in each exploration dataset is associated with each component of the system. The data is only a semi-quantitative, where values are either high, medium, or low, relative to background levels. In addition, the dataset has significant gaps, as not every possible exploration dataset has been collected and analyzed at every known or suspected geothermal resource area, in the context of all possible play types. The following training sites were used to assemble this dataset: - Conventional magmatic hydrothermal: Akutan (from AK PFA), Oregon Cascades PFA, Glass Buttes OR, Mauna Kea (from HI PFA), Lanai (from HI PFA), Mt St Helens Shear Zone (from WA PFA), Wind River Valley (From WA PFA), Mount Baker (from WA PFA). - Superhot EGS: Newberry (EGS demonstration project), Coso (EGS demonstration project), Geysers (EGS demonstration project), Eastern Snake River Plain (EGS demonstration project), Utah FORGE, Larderello, Kakkonda, Taupo Volcanic Zone, Acoculco, Krafla. - Supercritical: Coso, Geysers, Salton Sea, Larderello, Los Humeros, Taupo Volcanic Zone, Krafla, Reyjanes, Hengill. **Disclaimer: Treat the supercritical fluid anomalies with skepticism. They are based on assumptions due to the general lack of confirmed supercritical fluid encounters and samples at the sites included in this dataset, at the time of assembling the dataset. The main assumption was that the supercritical fluid in a given geothermal system has shared properties with the hydrothermal fluid, which may not be the case in reality. Once the datasets were assembled, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to each. PCA is an unsupervised statistical learning technique, meaning that labels are not required on the data, that summarized the directions of variance in the data. This approach was chosen because our labels are not certain, i.e., we do not know with 100% confidence that superhot resources exist at all the assumed positive areas. We also do not have data for any known non-geothermal areas, meaning that it would be challenging to apply a supervised learning technique. In order to generate weights from the PCA, an analysis of the PCA loading values was conducted. PCA loading values represent how much a feature is contributing to each principal component, and therefore the overall variance in the data.

Introduction

Welcome to the Korean Language Visual Speech Dataset! This dataset is a collection of diverse, single-person unscripted spoken videos supporting research in visual speech recognition, emotion detection, and multimodal communication.

Dataset Content

This visual speech dataset contains 1000 videos in Korean language each paired with a corresponding high-fidelity audio track. Each participant is answering a specific question in a video in an unscripted and spontaneous nature.

Video Data

While recording each video extensive guidelines are kept in mind to maintain the quality and diversity.

Metadata

The dataset provides comprehensive metadata for each video recording and participant:

The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER database. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on the latest available governmental unit boundaries. The Census TIGER database represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries.

This shapefile represents the current State House Districts for New Mexico as posted on the Census Bureau website for 2006.