This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Single Digital View dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks.We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.DisclaimerThe data quality assessment may not represent the quality of the current dataset that is published on the Open Data Portal. Please check the date of the latest quality assessment and compare to the 'Modified' date of the corresponding dataset. The data quality assessments will be updated on either a quarterly or annual basis, dependent on the update frequency of the dataset. This information can be found in the dataset metadata, within the Information tab. If you require a more up to date quality assessment, please contact the Open Data Team at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk and a member of the team will be in contact.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Long Term Development Statement dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on 31st March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality; to demonstrate our progress we conduct annual assessments of our data quality in line with the dataset refresh rate. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks.We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.DisclaimerThe data quality assessment may not represent the quality of the current dataset that is published on the Open Data Portal. Please check the date of the latest quality assessment and compare to the 'Modified' date of the corresponding dataset. The data quality assessments will be updated on either a quarterly or annual basis, dependent on the update frequency of the dataset. This information can be found in the dataset metadata, within the Information tab. If you require a more up to date quality assessment, please contact the Open Data Team at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk and a member of the team will be in contact.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Curtailment dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks.We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.DisclaimerThe data quality assessment may not represent the quality of the current dataset that is published on the Open Data Portal. Please check the date of the latest quality assessment and compare to the 'Modified' date of the corresponding dataset. The data quality assessments will be updated on either a quarterly or annual basis, dependent on the update frequency of the dataset. This information can be found in the dataset metadata, within the Information tab. If you require a more up to date quality assessment, please contact the Open Data Team at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk and a member of the team will be in contact.

The statistic depicts the means of managing data quality among enterprises in North America, according to a survey of North American IT executives conducted by 451 Research in 2015. As of 2015, ** percent of respondents indicated that their company uses a data quality management (DQM) cloud service to manage their data quality.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Network Development Plan dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on 31st March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality; to demonstrate our progress we conduct annual assessments of our data quality in line with the dataset refresh rate. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks.We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.DisclaimerThe data quality assessment may not represent the quality of the current dataset that is published on the Open Data Portal. Please check the date of the latest quality assessment and compare to the 'Modified' date of the corresponding dataset. The data quality assessments will be updated on either a quarterly or annual basis, dependent on the update frequency of the dataset. This information can be found in the dataset metadata, within the Information tab. If you require a more up to date quality assessment, please contact the Open Data Team at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk and a member of the team will be in contact.

This DSS presentation describes the CCWIS data quality requirements, as defined by Federal Regulations 45 CFR 1355.52. In addition, this presentation provides guidance on biennial reviews and on how to compose CCWIS data quality plans.

Metadata-only record linking to the original dataset. Open original dataset below.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Technical Limits dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 16th of September 2025. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks.We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.DisclaimerThe data quality assessment may not represent the quality of the current dataset that is published on the Open Data Portal. Please check the date of the latest quality assessment and compare to the 'Modified' date of the corresponding dataset. The data quality assessments will be updated on either a quarterly or annual basis, dependent on the update frequency of the dataset. This information can be found in the dataset metadata, within the Information tab. If you require a more up to date quality assessment, please contact the Open Data Team at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk and a member of the team will be in contact.

This document contains a selection of standard terms and definitions relevant to the quality assurance of Essential Climate Variable (ECVs) data records. It reproduces appropriate terms and definitions published by normalization bodies, mainly by BIPM/JCGM/ISO in their International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) and Guide to the Expression of Uncertainties (GUM). It also reproduces selected terms and definitions related to the quality assurance and validation of Earth Observation (EO) data, available publicly on the ISO website and on the Cal/Val portal of the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS).

Several of those terms have been recommended by CEOS in the GEO-CEOS Quality Assurance framework for Earth Observation (QA4EO) and, as such, are applicable to virtually all Copernicus data sets of EO origin. Terms and definitions are expected to evolve as normalization organisations regularly update their standards.

This DSS presentation describes the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) Data Quality Requirements as defined by Federal Regulation 45 CFR 1355.52(d) and provides examples.

Metadata-only record linking to the original dataset. Open original dataset below.

Our poster is essential for understanding the process of creating a community of practice in the context of Open Science. Building such a community and at the same time being part of the culture change that offers openness in science is challenging. No single researcher or librarian would be able to achieve those results alone. Gdańsk Tech Library’s strategy to popularise and practice Open Science requires many actions supported by a team of people with different competencies

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Historic Faults dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 23rd of September 2025. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy NetworksWe welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.DisclaimerThe data quality assessment may not represent the quality of the current dataset that is published on the Open Data Portal. Please check the date of the latest quality assessment and compare to the 'Modified' date of the corresponding dataset. The data quality assessments will be updated on either a quarterly or annual basis, dependent on the update frequency of the dataset. This information can be found in the dataset metadata, within the Information tab. If you require a more up to date quality assessment, please contact the Open Data Team at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk and a member of the team will be in contact.

This document provides a description of each statewide data indicator (SWDI) and data quality check for the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), including the numerators, denominators, risk adjustments, exclusions, and corresponding data notes.

Metadata-only record linking to the original dataset. Open original dataset below.

Groundwater samples were collected from 60 public supply wells in the Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer. Water quality evaluations of groundwater for drinking water at public supply depths were made with the purpose of summarizing the current quality of source water (that is, untreated water) from public supply wells using two types of assessments; (1) status: an assessment that describes the current quality of the groundwater resource, and (2) understanding: an evaluation of the natural and human factors affecting the quality of groundwater, including an explanation of statistically significant associations between water quality and selected explanatory factors. To provide context for water-quality data, constituent concentrations of untreated groundwater are compared with available water-quality benchmarks Federal regulatory benchmarks for protecting human health (maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] primary drinking water regulations; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018a) are used for this evaluation. Additionally, non-regulatory human-health benchmarks (health-based screening levels [HBSLs]; Norman and others, 2018; U.S. Geological Survey, 2018); and federal non-regulatory benchmarks for nuisance chemicals (USEPA secondary maximum contaminant levels [SMCLs]; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018b) are used. This report considers benchmarks in the context of health-based (MCLs and HBSLs) and non-health based (SMCLs) benchmarks. This sampling approach uses an equal-area grid design (Belitz and others, 2010) which allows for the estimation of the proportion of high, moderate, or low concentrations relative to federal water-quality benchmarks of selected constituents over the entire area of the aquifer. Tables included in this data release: Table 1. Identification, location, and construction information for wells sampled for the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. Table 2. Constituent primary uses and sources; analytical schedules and sampling period; USGS parameter codes; comparison thresholds and reporting levels wells sampled for the for the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. Table 3. Water-quality indicators in groundwater samples collected by the for the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: NC, not collected; <, less than] Table 4. Nutrients and dissolved organic carbon in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level] Table 5. Major and minor ions in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level; E, estimated] Table 6. Trace elements in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: NC, not collected; --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level] Table 7. Radionuclides in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level] Table 8. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: NC, not collected; --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level] Table 9. Pesticides in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: NC, not collected; --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level; E, estimated] Table 10. Quality control results for constituents analyzed for nutrients and dissolved organic carbon in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: NC, not collected; --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level] Table 11. Quality control results for constituents analyzed for majors in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: NC, not collected; --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level] Table 12. Quality control results for constituents analyzed for trace elements in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level] Table 13. Quality control results of a replicate analyzed for radionuclides in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level; NC, not collected] Table 14. Quality control results for constituents analyzed for VOCs in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level; NC, not collected; E, estimated] Table 15. Quality control results for constituents analyzed for pesticides in groundwater samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Project, Colorado Plateaus principal aquifer, June 2013 through December 2017. [Table code definitions: --, less than minimum laboratory reporting level; NC, not collected]

This dataset contains data collected during a study "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems" conducted by Martin Lnenicka (University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic), Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu, Estonia), Mariusz Luterek (University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland), Petar Milic (University of Pristina - Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia), Daniel Rudmark (Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden), Sebastian Neumaier (St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences, Austria), Karlo Kević (University of Zagreb, Croatia), Anneke Zuiderwijk (Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands), Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar (University of Granada, Granada, Spain).

As there is a lack of understanding of the elements that constitute different types of value-adding public data ecosystems and how these elements form and shape the development of these ecosystems over time, which can lead to misguided efforts to develop future public data ecosystems, the aim of the study is: (1) to explore how public data ecosystems have developed over time and (2) to identify the value-adding elements and formative characteristics of public data ecosystems. Using an exploratory retrospective analysis and a deductive approach, we systematically review 148 studies published between 1994 and 2023. Based on the results, this study presents a typology of public data ecosystems and develops a conceptual model of elements and formative characteristics that contribute most to value-adding public data ecosystems, and develops a conceptual model of the evolutionary generation of public data ecosystems represented by six generations called Evolutionary Model of Public Data Ecosystems (EMPDE). Finally, three avenues for a future research agenda are proposed.

This dataset is being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems ", Telematics and Informatics*, and its Systematic Literature Review component that informs the study.

Description of the data in this data set

PublicDataEcosystem_SLR provides the structure of the protocol

Spreadsheet#1 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases and filtering out irrelevant studies

Spreadsheets #2 provides the protocol structure.

Spreadsheets #3 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies.

The information on each selected study was collected in four categories:(1) descriptive information,(2) approach- and research design- related information,(3) quality-related information,(4) HVD determination-related information

Descriptive Information

Article number

A study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet

Complete reference

The complete source information to refer to the study (in APA style), including the author(s) of the study, the year in which it was published, the study's title and other source information.

Year of publication

The year in which the study was published.

Journal article / conference paper / book chapter

The type of the paper, i.e., journal article, conference paper, or book chapter.

Journal / conference / book

Journal article, conference, where the paper is published.

DOI / Website

A link to the website where the study can be found.

Number of words

A number of words of the study.

Number of citations in Scopus and WoS

The number of citations of the paper in Scopus and WoS digital libraries.

Availability in Open Access

Availability of a study in the Open Access or Free / Full Access.

Keywords

Keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors (in the paper).

Relevance for our study (high / medium / low)

What is the relevance level of the paper for our study

Approach- and research design-related information

Approach- and research design-related information

Objective / Aim / Goal / Purpose & Research Questions

The research objective and established RQs.

Research method (including unit of analysis)

The methods used to collect data in the study, including the unit of analysis that refers to the country, organisation, or other specific unit that has been analysed such as the number of use-cases or policy documents, number and scope of the SLR etc.

Study’s contributions

The study’s contribution as defined by the authors

Qualitative / quantitative / mixed method

Whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach?

Availability of the underlying research data

Whether the paper has a reference to the public availability of the underlying research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data etc., or explains why these data are not openly shared?

Period under investigation

Period (or moment) in which the study was conducted (e.g., January 2021-March 2022)

Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, specify them

Does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, what theory / concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study? (e.g., mentioned to explain a certain phenomenon, used as a framework for analysis, tested theory, theory mentioned in the future research section).

Quality-related information

Quality concerns

Whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited information about the research methods used)?

Public Data Ecosystem-related information

Public data ecosystem definition

How is the public data ecosystem defined in the paper and any other equivalent term, mostly infrastructure. If an alternative term is used, how is the public data ecosystem called in the paper?

Public data ecosystem evolution / development

Does the paper define the evolution of the public data ecosystem? If yes, how is it defined and what factors affect it?

What constitutes a public data ecosystem?

What constitutes a public data ecosystem (components & relationships) - their "FORM / OUTPUT" presented in the paper (general description with more detailed answers to further additional questions).

Components and relationships

What components does the public data ecosystem consist of and what are the relationships between these components? Alternative names for components - element, construct, concept, item, helix, dimension etc. (detailed description).

Stakeholders

What stakeholders (e.g., governments, citizens, businesses, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve?

Actors and their roles

What actors does the public data ecosystem involve? What are their roles?

Data (data types, data dynamism, data categories etc.)

What data do the public data ecosystem cover (is intended / designed for)? Refer to all data-related aspects, including but not limited to data types, data dynamism (static data, dynamic, real-time data, stream), prevailing data categories / domains / topics etc.

Processes / activities / dimensions, data lifecycle phases

What processes, activities, dimensions and data lifecycle phases (e.g., locate, acquire, download, reuse, transform, etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve or refer to?

Level (if relevant)

What is the level of the public data ecosystem covered in the paper? (e.g., city, municipal, regional, national (=country), supranational, international).

Other elements or relationships (if any)

What other elements or relationships does the public data ecosystem consist of?

Additional comments

Additional comments (e.g., what other topics affected the public data ecosystems and their elements, what is expected to affect the public data ecosystems in the future, what were important topics by which the period was characterised etc.).

New papers

Does the study refer to any other potentially relevant papers?

Additional references to potentially relevant papers that were found in the analysed paper (snowballing).

Format of the file.xls, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only), .docx

Licenses or restrictionsCC-BY

For more info, see README.txt

This document provides a description of each statewide data indicator and data quality check, including the numerators, denominators, risk adjustments, exclusions, and corresponding data notes. Metadata-only record linking to the original dataset. Open original dataset below.

Numerous studies make extensive use of healthcare data, including human materials and clinical information, and acknowledge its significance. However, limitations in data collection methods can impact the quality of healthcare data obtained from multiple institutions. In order to secure high-quality data related to human materials, research focused on data quality is necessary. This study validated the quality of data collected in 2020 from 16 institutions constituting the Korea Biobank Network using 104 validation rules. The validation rules were developed based on the DQ4HEALTH model and were divided into four dimensions: completeness, validity, accuracy, and uniqueness. Korea Biobank Network collects and manages human materials and clinical information from multiple biobanks, and is in the process of developing a common data model for data integration. The results of the data quality verification revealed an error rate of 0.74%. Furthermore, an analysis of the data from each institution was performed to examine the relationship between the institution’s characteristics and error count. The results from a chi-square test indicated that there was an independent correlation between each institution and its error count. To confirm this correlation between error counts and the characteristics of each institution, a correlation analysis was conducted. The results, shown in a graph, revealed the relationship between factors that had high correlation coefficients and the error count. The findings suggest that the data quality was impacted by biases in the evaluation system, including the institution’s IT environment, infrastructure, and the number of collected samples. These results highlight the need to consider the scalability of research quality when evaluating clinical epidemiological information linked to human materials in future validation studies of data quality.

Each pixel value corresponds to the actual number (count) of valid Best-quality Max-NDVI values used to calculate the mean weekly values for that pixel. Since 2020, the maximum number of possible observations used to create the Mean Best-Quality Max-NDVI for the 2000-2014 period is n=20. However, because data quality varies both temporally and geographically (e.g. cloud cover and snow cover in spring; cloud near large water bodies all year), the actual number (count) of observations used to create baselines can vary significantly for any given week and year.

Dataset shows an individual’s statistical area 3 (SA3) of usual residence and the SA3 of their workplace address, for the employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, by main means of travel to work from the 2018 and 2023 Censuses.

​

The main means of travel to work categories are:

• Work at home
• Drive a private car, truck, or van
• Drive a company car, truck, or van
• Passenger in a car, truck, van, or company bus
• Public bus
• Train
• Bicycle
• Walk or jog
• Ferry
• Other.

​

Main means of travel to work is the usual method which an employed person aged 15 years and over used to travel the longest distance to their place of work.

​

Workplace address refers to where someone usually works in their main job, that is the job in which they worked the most hours. For people who work at home, this is the same address as their usual residence address. For people who do not work at home, this could be the address of the business they work for or another address, such as a building site.

​

Workplace address is coded to the most detailed geography possible from the available information. This dataset only includes travel to work information for individuals whose workplace address is available at SA3 level. The sum of the counts for each region in this dataset may not equal the total employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over for that region. Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information.

​

This dataset can be used in conjunction with the following spatial files by joining on the SA3 code values:

• Statistical area 3 2023 (generalised)

​

Download data table using the instructions in the Koordinates help guide.

​

Footnotes

​

Geographical boundaries

Statistical standard for geographic areas 2023 (updated December 2023) has information about geographic boundaries as of 1 January 2023. Address data from 2013 and 2018 Censuses was updated to be consistent with the 2023 areas. Due to the changes in area boundaries and coding methodologies, 2013 and 2018 counts published in 2023 may be slightly different to those published in 2013 or 2018.

​

Subnational census usually resident population

The census usually resident population count of an area (subnational count) is a count of all people who usually live in that area and were present in New Zealand on census night. It excludes visitors from overseas, visitors from elsewhere in New Zealand, and residents temporarily overseas on census night. For example, a person who usually lives in Christchurch city and is visiting Wellington city on census night will be included in the census usually resident population count of Christchurch city. 

​

Population counts

Stats NZ publishes a number of different population counts, each using a different definition and methodology. Population statistics – user guide has more information about different counts. 

​

Caution using time series

Time series data should be interpreted with care due to changes in census methodology and differences in response rates between censuses. The 2023 and 2018 Censuses used a combined census methodology (using census responses and administrative data).

​

Workplace address time series

Workplace address time series data should be interpreted with care at lower geographic levels, such as statistical area 2 (SA2). Methodological improvements in 2023 Census resulted in greater data accuracy, including a greater proportion of people being counted at lower geographic areas compared to the 2018 Census. Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information.

​

Working at home

In the census, working at home captures both remote work, and people whose business is at their home address (e.g. farmers or small business owners operating from their home). The census asks respondents whether they ‘mostly’ work at home or away from home. It does not capture whether someone does both, or how frequently they do one or the other.

​

Rows excluded from the dataset

Rows show SA3 of usual residence by SA3 of workplace address. Rows with a total population count of less than six have been removed to reduce the size of the dataset, given only a small proportion of SA3-SA3 combinations have commuter flows.

​

About the 2023 Census dataset

For information on the 2023 dataset see Using a combined census model for the 2023 Census. We combined data from the census forms with administrative data to create the 2023 Census dataset, which meets Stats NZ's quality criteria for population structure information. We added real data about real people to the dataset where we were confident the people who hadn’t completed a census form (which is known as admin enumeration) will be counted. We also used data from the 2018 and 2013 Censuses, administrative data sources, and statistical imputation methods to fill in some missing characteristics of people and dwellings.

​

Data quality

The quality of data in the 2023 Census is assessed using the quality rating scale and the quality assurance framework to determine whether data is fit for purpose and suitable for release. Data quality assurance in the 2023 Census has more information.

​

Quality rating of a variable

The quality rating of a variable provides an overall evaluation of data quality for that variable, usually at the highest levels of classification. The quality ratings shown are for the 2023 Census unless stated. There is variability in the quality of data at smaller geographies. Data quality may also vary between censuses, for subpopulations, or when cross tabulated with other variables or at lower levels of the classification. Data quality ratings for 2023 Census variables has more information on quality ratings by variable.

​

Main means of travel to work quality rating

Main means of travel to work is rated as moderate quality.

Main means of travel to work – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information, for example, definitions and data quality.

​

Workplace address quality rating

Workplace address is rated as moderate quality.

Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information, for example, definitions and data quality.

​

Using data for good

Stats NZ expects that, when working with census data, it is done so with a positive purpose, as outlined in the Māori Data Governance Model (Data Iwi Leaders Group, 2023). This model states that "data should support transformative outcomes and should uplift and strengthen our relationships with each other and with our environments. The avoidance of harm is the minimum expectation for data use. Māori data should also contribute to iwi and hapū tino rangatiratanga”.

​

Confidentiality

The 2023 Census confidentiality rules have been applied to 2013, 2018, and 2023 data. These rules protect the confidentiality of individuals, families, households, dwellings, and undertakings in 2023 Census data. Counts are calculated using fixed random rounding to base 3 (FRR3) and suppression of ‘sensitive’ counts less than six, where tables report multiple geographic variables and/or small populations. Individual figures may not always sum to stated totals. Applying confidentiality rules to 2023 Census data and summary of changes since 2018 and 2013 Censuses has more information about 2023 Census confidentiality rules.

​

Percentages

To calculate percentages, divide the figure for the category of interest by the figure for ‘Total stated’ where this applies.

​

Symbol

-999 Confidential

​

Inconsistencies in definitions

Please note that there may be differences in definitions between census classifications and those used for other data collections.

Data accompanying the article Exploring Definitions of Quality and Diversity in Sonic Measurement Spaces The Innovation Engine algorithm is used to evolve sounds, where Quality Diversity search is guided by Behaviour Definitions by unsupervised models and full-reference and no-reference quality evaluation approaches. Sonic discoveries have shaped and transformed creative processes in sound art and music production. Compositions prompted by new timbres influence and improve our lives. Modern technology offers a vast space of sonic possibilities to explore. Background and expertise influence the explorers ability to navigate that space of possibilities. Efforts have been made to develop automated systems that can systematically generate and explore these sonic possibilities. One route of such efforts has involved the search for diversity and quality with evolutionary algorithms, automating the evaluation of those metrics with supervised models. We continue on that path of investigation by further exploring possible definitions of quality and diversity in sonic measurement spaces by applying and dynamically redefining unsupervised models to autonomously illuminate sonic search spaces. In particular we investigate the applicability of unsupervised dimensionality reduction models for defining dynamically expanding, structured containers for a quality diversity search algorithm to operate within. Furthermore we evaluate different approaches for defining sonic characteristics with different feature extraction approaches. Results demonstrate considerable ability in autonomously discovering a diversity of sounds, as well as limitations of simulating evolution within the confines of a single, structured, albeit dynamically redefined, search landscape. Sound objects discovered in traversals through such autonomously illuminated sonic spaces can serve as resources in shaping our lives and steering them through diverse creative paths, along which stepping stones towards interesting innovations can be collected and used as input to human culture.

On October 15, 2013, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer announced the signing of an open data policy executive order in conjunction with his compelling talk at the 2013 Code for America Summit. In nonchalant cadence, the mayor announced his support for complete information disclosure by declaring, "It's data, man."Sunlight Foundation - New Louisville Open Data Policy Insists Open By Default is the Future Open Data Annual ReportsSection 5.A. Within one year of the effective Data of this Executive Order, and thereafter no later than September 1 of each year, the Open Data Management Team shall submit to the Mayor an annual Open Data Report.The Open Data Management team (also known as the Data Governance Team is currently led by the city's Data Officer Andrew McKinney in the Office of Civic Innovation and Technology. Previously (2014-16) it was led by the Director of IT.Full Executive OrderEXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1, SERIES 2013AN EXECUTIVE ORDERCREATING AN OPEN DATA PLAN. WHEREAS, Metro Government is the catalyst for creating a world-class city that provides its citizens with safe and vibrant neighborhoods, great jobs, a strong system of education and innovation, and a high quality of life; andWHEREAS, it should be easy to do business with Metro Government. Online government interactions mean more convenient services for citizens and businesses and online government interactions improve the cost effectiveness and accuracy of government operations; andWHEREAS, an open government also makes certain that every aspect of the built environment also has reliable digital descriptions available to citizens and entrepreneurs for deep engagement mediated by smart devices; andWHEREAS, every citizen has the right to prompt, efficient service from Metro Government; andWHEREAS, the adoption of open standards improves transparency, access to public information and improved coordination and efficiencies among Departments and partner organizations across the public, nonprofit and private sectors; andWHEREAS, by publishing structured standardized data in machine readable formats the Louisville Metro Government seeks to encourage the local software community to develop software applications and tools to collect, organize, and share public record data in new and innovative ways; andWHEREAS, in commitment to the spirit of Open Government, Louisville Metro Government will consider public information to be open by default and will proactively publish data and data containing information, consistent with the Kentucky Open Meetings and Open Records Act; andNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROMULGATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE HONORABLE GREG FISCHER, MAYOR OF LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT AS FOLLOWS:Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Executive Order, the terms below shall have the following definitions:(A) “Open Data” means any public record as defined by the Kentucky Open Records Act, which could be made available online using Open Format data, as well as best practice Open Data structures and formats when possible. Open Data is not information that is treated exempt under KRS 61.878 by Metro Government.(B) “Open Data Report” is the annual report of the Open Data Management Team, which shall (i) summarize and comment on the state of Open Data availability in Metro Government Departments from the previous year; (ii) provide a plan for the next year to improve online public access to Open Data and maintain data quality. The Open Data Management Team shall present an initial Open Data Report to the Mayor within 180 days of this Executive Order.(C) “Open Format” is any widely accepted, nonproprietary, platform-independent, machine-readable method for formatting data, which permits automated processing of such data and is accessible to external search capabilities.(D) “Open Data Portal” means the Internet site established and maintained by or on behalf of Metro Government, located at portal.louisvilleky.gov/service/data or its successor website.(E) “Open Data Management Team” means a group consisting of representatives from each Department within Metro Government and chaired by the Chief Information Officer (CIO) that is responsible for coordinating implementation of an Open Data Policy and creating the Open Data Report.(F) “Department” means any Metro Government department, office, administrative unit, commission, board, advisory committee, or other division of Metro Government within the official jurisdiction of the executive branch.Section 2. Open Data Portal.(A) The Open Data Portal shall serve as the authoritative source for Open Data provided by Metro Government(B) Any Open Data made accessible on Metro Government’s Open Data Portal shall use an Open Format.Section 3. Open Data Management Team.(A) The Chief Information Officer (CIO) of Louisville Metro Government will work with the head of each Department to identify a Data Coordinator in each Department. Data Coordinators will serve as members of an Open Data Management Team facilitated by the CIO and Metro Technology Services. The Open Data Management Team will work to establish a robust, nationally recognized, platform that addresses digital infrastructure and Open Data.(B) The Open Data Management Team will develop an Open Data management policy that will adopt prevailing Open Format standards for Open Data, and develop agreements with regional partners to publish and maintain Open Data that is open and freely available while respecting exemptions allowed by the Kentucky Open Records Act or other federal or state law.Section 4. Department Open Data Catalogue.(A) Each Department shall be responsible for creating an Open Data catalogue, which will include comprehensive inventories of information possessed and/or managed by the Department.(B) Each Department’s Open Data catalogue will classify information holdings as currently “public” or “not yet public”; Departments will work with Metro Technology Services to develop strategies and timelines for publishing open data containing information in a way that is complete, reliable, and has a high level of detail.Section 5. Open Data Report and Policy Review.(A) Within one year of the effective date of this Executive Order, and thereafter no later than September 1 of each year, the Open Data Management Team shall submit to the Mayor an annual Open Data Report.(B) In acknowledgment that technology changes rapidly, in the future, the Open Data Policy should be reviewed and considered for revisions or additions that will continue to position Metro Government as a leader on issues of openness, efficiency, and technical best practices.Section 6. This Executive Order shall take effect as of October 11, 2013.Signed this 11th day of October, 2013, by Greg Fischer, Mayor of Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government.GREG FISCHER, MAYOR