This dataset contains data collected during a study ("Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review") conducted by Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu), Nina Rizun, Magdalena Ciesielska (Gdańsk University of Technology), Charalampos Alexopoulos (University of the Aegean) and Andrea Miletič (University of Zagreb) It being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review" paper (pre-print is available in Open Access here -> https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10234) and in order for other researchers to use these data in their own work.

The protocol is intended for the Systematic Literature review on the topic of High-value Datasets with the aim to gather information on how the topic of High-value datasets (HVD) and their determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, incl. the indicators used in them, involved stakeholders, data-related aspects, and frameworks. The data in this dataset were collected in the result of the SLR over Scopus, Web of Science, and Digital Government Research library (DGRL) in 2023.

Methodology

To understand how HVD determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, all relevant literature covering this topic has been studied. To this end, the SLR was carried out to by searching digital libraries covered by Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Digital Government Research library (DGRL).

These databases were queried for keywords ("open data" OR "open government data") AND ("high-value data*" OR "high value data*"), which were applied to the article title, keywords, and abstract to limit the number of papers to those, where these objects were primary research objects rather than mentioned in the body, e.g., as a future work. After deduplication, 11 articles were found unique and were further checked for relevance. As a result, a total of 9 articles were further examined. Each study was independently examined by at least two authors.

To attain the objective of our study, we developed the protocol, where 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.

Test procedure Each study was independently examined by at least two authors, where after the in-depth examination of the full-text of the article, the structured protocol has been filled for each study. The structure of the survey is available in the supplementary file available (see Protocol_HVD_SLR.odt, Protocol_HVD_SLR.docx) The data collected for each study by two researchers were then synthesized in one final version by the third researcher.

Description of the data in this data set

Protocol_HVD_SLR provides the structure of the protocol Spreadsheets #1 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies. Spreadsheet#2 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases, i.e. before filtering out irrelevant 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
1) Article number - a study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet 2) Complete reference - the complete source information to refer to the study 3) Year of publication - the year in which the study was published 4) Journal article / conference paper / book chapter - the type of the paper -{journal article, conference paper, book chapter} 5) DOI / Website- a link to the website where the study can be found 6) Number of citations - the number of citations of the article in Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science 7) Availability in OA - availability of an article in the Open Access 8) Keywords - keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors 9) Relevance for this study - what is the relevance level of the article for this study? {high / medium / low}

Approach- and research design-related information 10) Objective / RQ - the research objective / aim, established research questions 11) Research method (including unit of analysis) - the methods used to collect data, including the unit of analy-sis (country, organisation, specific unit that has been ana-lysed, e.g., the number of use-cases, scope of the SLR etc.) 12) Contributions - the contributions of the study 13) Method - whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach? 14) Availability of the underlying research data- whether there is a reference to the publicly available underly-ing research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data, or explanation why these data are not shared? 15) Period under investigation - period (or moment) in which the study was conducted 16) Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches - does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study?

Quality- and relevance- related information
17) Quality concerns - whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited infor-mation about the research methods used)? 18) Primary research object - is the HVD a primary research object in the study? (primary - the paper is focused around the HVD determination, sec-ondary - mentioned but not studied (e.g., as part of discus-sion, future work etc.))

HVD determination-related information
19) HVD definition and type of value - how is the HVD defined in the article and / or any other equivalent term? 20) HVD indicators - what are the indicators to identify HVD? How were they identified? (components & relationships, “input -> output") 21) A framework for HVD determination - is there a framework presented for HVD identification? What components does it consist of and what are the rela-tionships between these components? (detailed description) 22) Stakeholders and their roles - what stakeholders or actors does HVD determination in-volve? What are their roles? 23) Data - what data do HVD cover? 24) Level (if relevant) - what is the level of the HVD determination covered in the article? (e.g., city, regional, national, international)

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

Licenses or restrictions CC-BY

For more info, see README.txt

A de-identified open dataset of 507 adults, capturing how people understand their core personal values, sense of meaning, life direction, fulfilment, behavioural alignment, and emotional wellbeing in the context of digital and AI-mediated environments.

Attribute definitions and collected data values.

Survey dataset capturing how adults define their core values, sense of purpose and meaning, and how these relate to behaviour, digital distraction and attitudes toward AI.

This table contains information on the balance sheet of the general government sector. The information is limited to financial assets and liabilities. For each reporting period the opening and closing stocks, financial transactions and other changes are shown. Transactions are economic flows that are the result of agreements between units. Other changes are changes in the value of assets or liabilities that do not result from transactions such as revaluations or reclassifications. The figures are consolidated which means that flows between units that belong to the same sector are eliminated. As a result, assets and liabilities of subsectors do not add up to total assets or liabilities of general government. For example, loans of the State provided to social security funds are part of loans of the State. However, these are not included in the consolidated assets of general government, because it is an asset of a government unit with a government unit as debtor. Financial assets and liabilities in this table are presented at market value. The terms and definitions used are in accordance with the framework of the Dutch national accounts. National accounts are based on the international definitions of the European System of Accounts (ESA 2010). Small temporary differences with publications of the National Accounts may occur due to the fact that the government finance statistics are sometimes more up to date.

Data available from: Yearly figures from 1995, quarterly figures from 1999.

Status of the figures: The figures for the period 1995-2023 are final. The figures for 2024 and 2025 are provisional.

Changes as of 23 September 2025: Figures for the first quarter of 2025 have been adjusted. The figures for the second quarter of 2025 are available.

Changes as of 10 April 2025: Due to an error made while processing the data, the initial preliminary figures for the government financial balance sheet in 2024 were calculated incorrectly. This causes a downward revision in other accounts payable.

When will new figures be published? Provisional quarterly figures are published three months after the end of the quarter. In September the figures on the first quarter may be revised, in December the figures on the second quarter may be revised and in March the first three quarters may be revised. Yearly figures are published for the first time three months after the end of the year concerned. Yearly figures are revised two times: 6 and 18 months after the end of the year. Please note that there is a possibility that adjustments might take place at the end of March or September, in order to provide the European Commission with the most actual figures. Revised yearly figures are published in June each year. Quarterly figures are aligned to the three revised years at the end of June. More information on the revision policy of Dutch national accounts and government finance statistics can be found under 'relevant articles' under paragraph 3.

Complete dataset of “Film Circulation on the International Film Festival Network and the Impact on Global Film Culture”

A peer-reviewed data paper for this dataset is in review to be published in NECSUS_European Journal of Media Studies - an open access journal aiming at enhancing data transparency and reusability, and will be available from https://necsus-ejms.org/ and https://mediarep.org

Please cite this when using the dataset.

Detailed description of the dataset:

1 Film Dataset: Festival Programs

The Film Dataset consists a data scheme image file, a codebook and two dataset tables in csv format.

The codebook (csv file “1_codebook_film-dataset_festival-program”) offers a detailed description of all variables within the Film Dataset. Along with the definition of variables it lists explanations for the units of measurement, data sources, coding and information on missing data.

The csv file “1_film-dataset_festival-program_long” comprises a dataset of all films and the festivals, festival sections, and the year of the festival edition that they were sampled from. The dataset is structured in the long format, i.e. the same film can appear in several rows when it appeared in more than one sample festival. However, films are identifiable via their unique ID.

The csv file “1_film-dataset_festival-program_wide” consists of the dataset listing only unique films (n=9,348). The dataset is in the wide format, i.e. each row corresponds to a unique film, identifiable via its unique ID. For easy analysis, and since the overlap is only six percent, in this dataset the variable sample festival (fest) corresponds to the first sample festival where the film appeared. For instance, if a film was first shown at Berlinale (in February) and then at Frameline (in June of the same year), the sample festival will list “Berlinale”. This file includes information on unique and IMDb IDs, the film title, production year, length, categorization in length, production countries, regional attribution, director names, genre attribution, the festival, festival section and festival edition the film was sampled from, and information whether there is festival run information available through the IMDb data.

2 Survey Dataset

The Survey Dataset consists of a data scheme image file, a codebook and two dataset tables in csv format.

The codebook “2_codebook_survey-dataset” includes coding information for both survey datasets. It lists the definition of the variables or survey questions (corresponding to Samoilova/Loist 2019), units of measurement, data source, variable type, range and coding, and information on missing data.

The csv file “2_survey-dataset_long-festivals_shared-consent” consists of a subset (n=161) of the original survey dataset (n=454), where respondents provided festival run data for films (n=206) and gave consent to share their data for research purposes. This dataset consists of the festival data in a long format, so that each row corresponds to the festival appearance of a film.

The csv file “2_survey-dataset_wide-no-festivals_shared-consent” consists of a subset (n=372) of the original dataset (n=454) of survey responses corresponding to sample films. It includes data only for those films for which respondents provided consent to share their data for research purposes. This dataset is shown in wide format of the survey data, i.e. information for each response corresponding to a film is listed in one row. This includes data on film IDs, film title, survey questions regarding completeness and availability of provided information, information on number of festival screenings, screening fees, budgets, marketing costs, market screenings, and distribution. As the file name suggests, no data on festival screenings is included in the wide format dataset.

3 IMDb & Scripts

The IMDb dataset consists of a data scheme image file, one codebook and eight datasets, all in csv format. It also includes the R scripts that we used for scraping and matching.

The codebook “3_codebook_imdb-dataset” includes information for all IMDb datasets. This includes ID information and their data source, coding and value ranges, and information on missing data.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_aka-titles_long” contains film title data in different languages scraped from IMDb in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to a title in a given language.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_awards_long” contains film award data in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to an award of a given film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_companies_long” contains data on production and distribution companies of films. The dataset is in a long format, so that each row corresponds to a particular company of a particular film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_crew_long” contains data on names and roles of crew members in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to each crew member. The file also contains binary gender assigned to directors based on their first names using the GenderizeR application.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_festival-runs_long” contains festival run data scraped from IMDb in a long format, i.e. each row corresponds to the festival appearance of a given film. The dataset does not include each film screening, but the first screening of a film at a festival within a given year. The data includes festival runs up to 2019.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_general-info_wide” contains general information about films such as genre as defined by IMDb, languages in which a film was shown, ratings, and budget. The dataset is in wide format, so that each row corresponds to a unique film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_release-info_long” contains data about non-festival release (e.g., theatrical, digital, tv, dvd/blueray). The dataset is in a long format, so that each row corresponds to a particular release of a particular film.

The csv file “3_imdb-dataset_websites_long” contains data on available websites (official websites, miscellaneous, photos, video clips). The dataset is in a long format, so that each row corresponds to a website of a particular film.

The dataset includes 8 text files containing the script for webscraping. They were written using the R-3.6.3 version for Windows.

The R script “r_1_unite_data” demonstrates the structure of the dataset, that we use in the following steps to identify, scrape, and match the film data.

The R script “r_2_scrape_matches” reads in the dataset with the film characteristics described in the “r_1_unite_data” and uses various R packages to create a search URL for each film from the core dataset on the IMDb website. The script attempts to match each film from the core dataset to IMDb records by first conducting an advanced search based on the movie title and year, and then potentially using an alternative title and a basic search if no matches are found in the advanced search. The script scrapes the title, release year, directors, running time, genre, and IMDb film URL from the first page of the suggested records from the IMDb website. The script then defines a loop that matches (including matching scores) each film in the core dataset with suggested films on the IMDb search page. Matching was done using data on directors, production year (+/- one year), and title, a fuzzy matching approach with two methods: “cosine” and “osa.” where the cosine similarity is used to match titles with a high degree of similarity, and the OSA algorithm is used to match titles that may have typos or minor variations.

The script “r_3_matching” creates a dataset with the matches for a manual check. Each pair of films (original film from the core dataset and the suggested match from the IMDb website was categorized in the following five categories: a) 100% match: perfect match on title, year, and director; b) likely good match; c) maybe match; d) unlikely match; and e) no match). The script also checks for possible doubles in the dataset and identifies them for a manual check.

The script “r_4_scraping_functions” creates a function for scraping the data from the identified matches (based on the scripts described above and manually checked). These functions are used for scraping the data in the next script.

The script “r_5a_extracting_info_sample” uses the function defined in the “r_4_scraping_functions”, in order to scrape the IMDb data for the identified matches. This script does that for the first 100 films, to check, if everything works. Scraping for the entire dataset took a few hours. Therefore, a test with a subsample of 100 films is advisable.

The script “r_5b_extracting_info_all” extracts the data for the entire dataset of the identified matches.

The script “r_5c_extracting_info_skipped” checks the films with missing data (where data was not scraped) and tried to extract data one more time to make sure that the errors were not caused by disruptions in the internet connection or other technical issues.

The script “r_check_logs” is used for troubleshooting and tracking the progress of all of the R scripts used. It gives information on the amount of missing values and errors.

4 Festival Library Dataset

The Festival Library Dataset consists of a data scheme image file, one codebook and one dataset, all in csv format.

The codebook (csv file “4_codebook_festival-library_dataset”) offers a detailed description of all variables within the Library Dataset. It lists the definition of variables, such as location and festival name, and festival categories, units of measurement, data sources and coding and missing data.

The csv file “4_festival-library_dataset_imdb-and-survey” contains data on all unique festivals collected from both IMDb and survey sources. This dataset appears in wide format, all information for each festival is listed in one row. This

A workshop was held to address the analysis of data sets containing values below the method detection limit, common in activities like chemical analysis of air and water quality or assessing contaminants in plants and animals. Despite the value of this data, it's often ignored or mishandled. The workshop, led by statistician Carolyn Huston, focused on using the R software for statistical analysis in such cases. The workshop attracted participants from various organizations and received positive feedback. The goal was to equip attendees with tools to enhance data analysis and decision-making, recognizing that statistics is a way of tackling uncertainty.

Jurisdictional Unit, 2022-05-21. For use with WFDSS, IFTDSS, IRWIN, and InFORM.This is a feature service which provides Identify and Copy Feature capabilities. If fast-drawing at coarse zoom levels is a requirement, consider using the tile (map) service layer located at https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b2c5daad00742cd9f9b676c09d03d13.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Agencies dataset is developed as a national land management geospatial layer, focused on representing wildland fire jurisdictional responsibility, for interagency wildland fire applications, including WFDSS (Wildland Fire Decision Support System), IFTDSS (Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System), IRWIN (Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information), and InFORM (Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules). It is intended to provide federal wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries on a national scale. The agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIdentifier=null,JurisdictionalUnitAgency=null, JurisdictionalUnitKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).These data are used to automatically populate fields on the WFDSS Incident Information page.This data layer implements the NWCG Jurisdictional Unit Polygon Geospatial Data Layer Standard.Relevant NWCG Definitions and StandardsUnit2. A generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Unit, Protecting; LandownerUnit IdentifierThis data standard specifies the standard format and rules for Unit Identifier, a code used within the wildland fire community to uniquely identify a particular government organizational unit.Landowner Kind & CategoryThis data standard provides a two-tier classification (kind and category) of landownership. Attribute Fields JurisdictionalAgencyKind Describes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, and Other. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalAgencyCategoryDescribes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Standard Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available from the Unit ID standard, linked above.LandownerKindThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. There are three valid values: Federal, Private, or Other.LandownerCategoryThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State, Private.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. Be as specific as possible, identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated.SecondaryDataSourceIf the Data Source is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if Data Source is "PAD-US 2.1", then for a USDA Forest Service polygon, the Secondary Data Source would be "USDA FS Automated Lands Program (ALP)". For a BLM polygon in the same dataset, Secondary Source would be "Surface Management Agency (SMA)."SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.MapMethod:Controlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. Map method may help define data quality. MapMethod will be Mixed Method by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; OtherDateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using 24 hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature. GeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. This field may be renamed for each standard to fit the feature.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LocalNameLocalName for the polygon provided from PADUS or other source.LegendJurisdictionalAgencyJurisdictional Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.LegendLandownerAgencyLandowner Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.Data InputThis dataset is based on an aggregation of 4 spatial data sources: Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 2.1), data from Bureau of Indian Affairs regional offices, the BLM Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska, and Census Block-Group Geometry. NWCG Unit ID and Agency Kind/Category data are tabular and sourced from UnitIDActive.txt, in the WFMI Unit ID application (https://wfmi.nifc.gov/unit_id/Publish.html). Areas of with unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Agency Kind/Category are assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private" by use of the non-water polygons from the Census Block-Group geometry.PAD-US 2.1:This dataset is based in large part on the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States - PAD-US 2.`. PAD-US is a compilation of authoritative protected areas data between agencies and organizations that ultimately results in a comprehensive and accurate inventory of protected areas for the United States to meet a variety of needs (e.g. conservation, recreation, public health, transportation, energy siting, ecological, or watershed assessments and planning). Extensive documentation on PAD-US processes and data sources is available.How these data were aggregated:Boundaries, and their descriptors, available in spatial databases (i.e. shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes) from land management agencies are the desired and primary data sources in PAD-US. If these authoritative sources are unavailable, or the agency recommends another source, data may be incorporated by other aggregators such as non-governmental organizations. Data sources are tracked for each record in the PAD-US geodatabase (see below).BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data are not available in PAD-US. As such, data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were substantially updated in 2022. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The

LScDC Word-Category RIG MatrixApril 2020 by Neslihan Suzen, PhD student at the University of Leicester (ns433@leicester.ac.uk / suzenneslihan@hotmail.com)Supervised by Prof Alexander Gorban and Dr Evgeny MirkesGetting StartedThis file describes the Word-Category RIG Matrix for theLeicester Scientific Corpus (LSC) [1], the procedure to build the matrix and introduces the Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT) with the construction process. The Word-Category RIG Matrix is a 103,998 by 252 matrix, where rows correspond to words of Leicester Scientific Dictionary-Core (LScDC) [2] and columns correspond to 252 Web of Science (WoS) categories [3, 4, 5]. Each entry in the matrix corresponds to a pair (category,word). Its value for the pair shows the Relative Information Gain (RIG) on the belonging of a text from the LSC to the category from observing the word in this text. The CSV file of Word-Category RIG Matrix in the published archive is presented with two additional columns of the sum of RIGs in categories and the maximum of RIGs over categories (last two columns of the matrix). So, the file ‘Word-Category RIG Matrix.csv’ contains a total of 254 columns.This matrix is created to be used in future research on quantifying of meaning in scientific texts under the assumption that words have scientifically specific meanings in subject categories and the meaning can be estimated by information gains from word to categories. LScT (Leicester Scientific Thesaurus) is a scientific thesaurus of English. The thesaurus includes a list of 5,000 words from the LScDC. We consider ordering the words of LScDC by the sum of their RIGs in categories. That is, words are arranged in their informativeness in the scientific corpus LSC. Therefore, meaningfulness of words evaluated by words’ average informativeness in the categories. We have decided to include the most informative 5,000 words in the scientific thesaurus. Words as a Vector of Frequencies in WoS CategoriesEach word of the LScDC is represented as a vector of frequencies in WoS categories. Given the collection of the LSC texts, each entry of the vector consists of the number of texts containing the word in the corresponding category.It is noteworthy that texts in a corpus do not necessarily belong to a single category, as they are likely to correspond to multidisciplinary studies, specifically in a corpus of scientific texts. In other words, categories may not be exclusive. There are 252 WoS categories and a text can be assigned to at least 1 and at most 6 categories in the LSC. Using the binary calculation of frequencies, we introduce the presence of a word in a category. We create a vector of frequencies for each word, where dimensions are categories in the corpus.The collection of vectors, with all words and categories in the entire corpus, can be shown in a table, where each entry corresponds to a pair (word,category). This table is build for the LScDC with 252 WoS categories and presented in published archive with this file. The value of each entry in the table shows how many times a word of LScDC appears in a WoS category. The occurrence of a word in a category is determined by counting the number of the LSC texts containing the word in a category. Words as a Vector of Relative Information Gains Extracted for CategoriesIn this section, we introduce our approach to representation of a word as a vector of relative information gains for categories under the assumption that meaning of a word can be quantified by their information gained for categories.For each category, a function is defined on texts that takes the value 1, if the text belongs to the category, and 0 otherwise. For each word, a function is defined on texts that takes the value 1 if the word belongs to the text, and 0 otherwise. Consider LSC as a probabilistic sample space (the space of equally probable elementary outcomes). For the Boolean random variables, the joint probability distribution, the entropy and information gains are defined.The information gain about the category from the word is the amount of information on the belonging of a text from the LSC to the category from observing the word in the text [6]. We used the Relative Information Gain (RIG) providing a normalised measure of the Information Gain. This provides the ability of comparing information gains for different categories. The calculations of entropy, Information Gains and Relative Information Gains can be found in the README file in the archive published. Given a word, we created a vector where each component of the vector corresponds to a category. Therefore, each word is represented as a vector of relative information gains. It is obvious that the dimension of vector for each word is the number of categories. The set of vectors is used to form the Word-Category RIG Matrix, in which each column corresponds to a category, each row corresponds to a word and each component is the relative information gain from the word to the category. In Word-Category RIG Matrix, a row vector represents the corresponding word as a vector of RIGs in categories. We note that in the matrix, a column vector represents RIGs of all words in an individual category. If we choose an arbitrary category, words can be ordered by their RIGs from the most informative to the least informative for the category. As well as ordering words in each category, words can be ordered by two criteria: sum and maximum of RIGs in categories. The top n words in this list can be considered as the most informative words in the scientific texts. For a given word, the sum and maximum of RIGs are calculated from the Word-Category RIG Matrix.RIGs for each word of LScDC in 252 categories are calculated and vectors of words are formed. We then form the Word-Category RIG Matrix for the LSC. For each word, the sum (S) and maximum (M) of RIGs in categories are calculated and added at the end of the matrix (last two columns of the matrix). The Word-Category RIG Matrix for the LScDC with 252 categories, the sum of RIGs in categories and the maximum of RIGs over categories can be found in the database.Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT)Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT) is a list of 5,000 words form the LScDC [2]. Words of LScDC are sorted in descending order by the sum (S) of RIGs in categories and the top 5,000 words are selected to be included in the LScT. We consider these 5,000 words as the most meaningful words in the scientific corpus. In other words, meaningfulness of words evaluated by words’ average informativeness in the categories and the list of these words are considered as a ‘thesaurus’ for science. The LScT with value of sum can be found as CSV file with the published archive. Published archive contains following files:1) Word_Category_RIG_Matrix.csv: A 103,998 by 254 matrix where columns are 252 WoS categories, the sum (S) and the maximum (M) of RIGs in categories (last two columns of the matrix), and rows are words of LScDC. Each entry in the first 252 columns is RIG from the word to the category. Words are ordered as in the LScDC.2) Word_Category_Frequency_Matrix.csv: A 103,998 by 252 matrix where columns are 252 WoS categories and rows are words of LScDC. Each entry of the matrix is the number of texts containing the word in the corresponding category. Words are ordered as in the LScDC.3) LScT.csv: List of words of LScT with sum (S) values. 4) Text_No_in_Cat.csv: The number of texts in categories. 5) Categories_in_Documents.csv: List of WoS categories for each document of the LSC.6) README.txt: Description of Word-Category RIG Matrix, Word-Category Frequency Matrix and LScT and forming procedures.7) README.pdf (same as 6 in PDF format)References[1] Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9449639.v2[2] Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LScDC (Leicester Scientific Dictionary-Core). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9896579.v3[3] Web of Science. (15 July). Available: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/[4] WoS Subject Categories. Available: https://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS56B5/help/WOS/hp_subject_category_terms_tasca.html [5] Suzen, N., Mirkes, E. M., & Gorban, A. N. (2019). LScDC-new large scientific dictionary. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06858. [6] Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 3.0 (AGDB3) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one best value determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 before it, the AGDB3 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, element concentrations and associations, environmental impact assessments, and studies in public health associated with geology. This relational database, created from databases and published datasets of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Atomic Energy Commission National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE), Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), U.S. Bureau of Mines, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management serves as a data archive in support of Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 112 laboratory and field analytical methods on 396,343 rock, sediment, soil, mineral, heavy-mineral concentrate, and oxalic acid leachate samples. Most samples were collected by personnel of these agencies and analyzed in agency laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various agency programs and projects from 1938 through 2017. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy-mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB3 includes historical geochemical data archived in the USGS National Geochemical Database (NGDB) and NURE National Uranium Resource Evaluation-Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance databases, and in the DGGS Geochemistry database. Retrievals from these databases were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. In other words, the data of the AGDB3 supersedes data in the AGDB and the AGDB2, but the background about the data in these two earlier versions are needed by users of the current AGDB3 to understand what has been done to amend, clean up, correct and format this data. Corrections were entered, resulting in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset, the AGDB3. Data that were not previously in these databases because the data predate the earliest agency geochemical databases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB3 and will be added to the NGDB and Alaska Geochemistry. The AGDB3 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB3 data provided in the online version of the database may be updated or changed periodically.

This digital dataset was created as part of a U.S. Geological Survey study, done in cooperation with the Monterey County Water Resource Agency, to conduct a hydrologic resource assessment and develop an integrated numerical hydrologic model of the hydrologic system of Salinas Valley, CA. As part of this larger study, the USGS developed this digital dataset of geologic data and three-dimensional hydrogeologic framework models, referred to here as the Salinas Valley Geological Framework (SVGF), that define the elevation, thickness, extent, and lithology-based texture variations of nine hydrogeologic units in Salinas Valley, CA. The digital dataset includes a geospatial database that contains two main elements as GIS feature datasets: (1) input data to the 3D framework and textural models, within a feature dataset called “ModelInput”; and (2) interpolated elevation, thicknesses, and textural variability of the hydrogeologic units stored as arrays of polygonal cells, within a feature dataset called “ModelGrids”. The model input data in this data release include stratigraphic and lithologic information from water, monitoring, and oil and gas wells, as well as data from selected published cross sections, point data derived from geologic maps and geophysical data, and data sampled from parts of previous framework models. Input surface and subsurface data have been reduced to points that define the elevation of the top of each hydrogeologic units at x,y locations; these point data, stored in a GIS feature class named “ModelInputData”, serve as digital input to the framework models. The location of wells used a sources of subsurface stratigraphic and lithologic information are stored within the GIS feature class “ModelInputData”, but are also provided as separate point feature classes in the geospatial database. Faults that offset hydrogeologic units are provided as a separate line feature class. Borehole data are also released as a set of tables, each of which may be joined or related to well location through a unique well identifier present in each table. Tables are in Excel and ascii comma-separated value (CSV) format and include separate but related tables for well location, stratigraphic information of the depths to top and base of hydrogeologic units intercepted downhole, downhole lithologic information reported at 10-foot intervals, and information on how lithologic descriptors were classed as sediment texture. Two types of geologic frameworks were constructed and released within a GIS feature dataset called “ModelGrids”: a hydrostratigraphic framework where the elevation, thickness, and spatial extent of the nine hydrogeologic units were defined based on interpolation of the input data, and (2) a textural model for each hydrogeologic unit based on interpolation of classed downhole lithologic data. Each framework is stored as an array of polygonal cells: essentially a “flattened”, two-dimensional representation of a digital 3D geologic framework. The elevation and thickness of the hydrogeologic units are contained within a single polygon feature class SVGF_3DHFM, which contains a mesh of polygons that represent model cells that have multiple attributes including XY location, elevation and thickness of each hydrogeologic unit. Textural information for each hydrogeologic unit are stored in a second array of polygonal cells called SVGF_TextureModel. The spatial data are accompanied by non-spatial tables that describe the sources of geologic information, a glossary of terms, a description of model units that describes the nine hydrogeologic units modeled in this study. A data dictionary defines the structure of the dataset, defines all fields in all spatial data attributer tables and all columns in all nonspatial tables, and duplicates the Entity and Attribute information contained in the metadata file. Spatial data are also presented as shapefiles. Downhole data from boreholes are released as a set of tables related by a unique well identifier, tables are in Excel and ascii comma-separated value (CSV) format.

This dataset is part of the Human Clarity Institute’s AI–Human Experience Data Series. It examines how adults understand their personal values, sense of meaning, life direction, fulfilment, behavioural alignment, and emotional wellbeing — and how these concepts interact with digital and AI-mediated environments.The dataset includes:• validated 1–7 Likert-scale indicators• values clarity and meaning measures• fulfilment, direction, and future motivation items• alignment vs conflict between values and behaviour• identity struggle indicators• wellbeing measures based on the WHO-5• digital/AI influence on values and decision-making• open-text reflections• demographic variables across six English-speaking countriesAll data were collected via Prolific in November 2025. The dataset has been cleaned, anonymised, verified, and documented following HCI’s open-data publication protocol.This dataset supports research on meaning, purpose, wellbeing, behaviour alignment, and how digital systems influence value-driven decision-making.

Coups d'État are important events in the life of a country. They constitute an important subset of irregular transfers of political power that can have significant and enduring consequences for national well-being. There are only a limited number of datasets available to study these events (Powell and Thyne 2011, Marshall and Marshall 2019). Seeking to facilitate research on post-WWII coups by compiling a more comprehensive list and categorization of these events, the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research (previously the Cline Center for Democracy) initiated the Coup d'État Project as part of its Societal Infrastructures and Development (SID) project. More specifically, this dataset identifies the outcomes of coup events (i.e. realized or successful coups, unrealized coup attempts, or thwarted conspiracies) the type of actor(s) who initiated the coup (i.e. military, rebels, etc.), as well as the fate of the deposed leader. This is version 2.1.0 of this dataset. Changes from the previously released data (v2.0.0) include: 1. Adding additional events and expanding the period covered to 1945-2022 2. Filling in missing actor information 3. Filling in missing information on the outcomes for the incumbent executive 4. Dropping events that were incorrectly coded as coup events
Items in this Dataset 1. Cline Center Coup d'État Codebook v.2.1.0 Codebook.pdf - This 16-page document provides a description of the Cline Center Coup d’État Project Dataset. The first section of this codebook provides a summary of the different versions of the data. The second section provides succinct definition of a coup d’état used by the Coup d’État Project and an overview of the categories used to differentiate the wide array of events that meet the project's definition. It also defines coup outcomes. The third section describes the methodology used to produce the data. Revised December 2022 2. Coup Data v2.1.0.csv - This CSV (Comma Separated Values) file contains all of the coup event data from the Cline Center Coup d’État Project. It contains 29 variables and 975 observations. Created December 2022 3. Source Document v2.1.0.pdf - This 315-page document provides the sources used for each of the coup events identified in this dataset. Please use the value in the coup_id variable to identify the sources used to identify that particular event. Created December 2022 4. README.md - This file contains useful information for the user about the dataset. It is a text file written in markdown language. Created December 2022
Citation Guidelines 1. To cite the codebook (or any other documentation associated with the Cline Center Coup d’État Project Dataset) please use the following citation: Peyton, Buddy, Joseph Bajjalieh, Dan Shalmon, Michael Martin, Jonathan Bonaguro, and Scott Althaus. 2022. “Cline Center Coup d’État Project Dataset Codebook”. Cline Center Coup d’État Project Dataset. Cline Center for Advanced Social Research. V.2.1.0. December 15. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. doi: 10.13012/B2IDB-9651987_V4 2. To cite data from the Cline Center Coup d’État Project Dataset please use the following citation (filling in the correct date of access): Peyton, Buddy, Joseph Bajjalieh, Dan Shalmon, Michael Martin, Jonathan Bonaguro, and Emilio Soto. 2022. Cline Center Coup d’État Project Dataset. Cline Center for Advanced Social Research. V.2.1.0. December 15. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. doi: 10.13012/B2IDB-9651987_V4

MetaMath QA

Mathematical Questions for Large Language Models

By Huggingface Hub [source]

About this dataset

This dataset contains meta-mathematics questions and answers collected from the Mistral-7B question-answering system. The responses, types, and queries are all provided in order to help boost the performance of MetaMathQA while maintaining high accuracy. With its well-structured design, this dataset provides users with an efficient way to investigate various aspects of question answering models and further understand how they function. Whether you are a professional or beginner, this dataset is sure to offer invaluable insights into the development of more powerful QA systems!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

Data Dictionary

The MetaMathQA dataset contains three columns: response, type, and query. - Response: the response to the query given by the question answering system. (String) - Type: the type of query provided as input to the system. (String) - Query:the question posed to the system for which a response is required. (String)

Preparing data for analysis

It’s important that before you dive into analysis, you first familiarize yourself with what kind data values are present in each column and also check if any preprocessing needs to be done on them such as removing unwanted characters or filling in missing values etc., so that it can be used without any issue while training or testing your model further down in your process flow.

##### Training Models using Mistral 7B

Mistral 7B is an open source framework designed for building machine learning models quickly and easily from tabular (csv) datasets such as those found in this dataset 'MetaMathQA ' . After collecting and preprocessing your dataset accordingly Mistral 7B provides with support for various Machine Learning algorithms like Support Vector Machines (SVM), Logistic Regression , Decision trees etc , allowing one to select from various popular libraries these offered algorithms with powerful overall hyperparameter optimization techniques so soon after selecting algorithm configuration its good practice that one use GridSearchCV & RandomSearchCV methods further tune both optimizations during model building stages . Post selection process one can then go ahead validate performances of selected models through metrics like accuracy score , F1 Metric , Precision Score & Recall Scores .

##### Testing phosphors :

After successful completion building phase right way would be robustly testing phosphors on different evaluation metrics mentioned above Model infusion stage helps here immediately make predictions based on earlier trained model OK auto back new test cases presented by domain experts could hey run quality assurance check again base score metrics mentioned above know asses confidence value post execution HHO updating baseline scores running experiments better preferred methodology AI workflows because Core advantage finally being have relevancy inexactness induced errors altogether impact low

Research Ideas

• Generating natural language processing (NLP) models to better identify patterns and connections between questions, answers, and types.
• Developing understandings on the efficiency of certain language features in producing successful question-answering results for different types of queries.
• Optimizing search algorithms that surface relevant answer results based on types of queries

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) - Public Domain Dedication No Copyright - You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information.

Columns

File: train.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------|:------------------------------------| | response | The response to the query. (String) | | type | The type of query. (String) |

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. If you use this dataset in your research, please credit Huggingface Hub.

Time series data for the statistic Trade_Balance_United_States_with_Sudan. Indicator Definition:Goods, Value of Trade Balance, US DollarsThe indicator "Goods, Value of Trade Balance, US Dollars" stands at -0.8019 Million as of 5/31/2025, the lowest value since 9/30/2024. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes an decrease of -1.05 Million compared to the value the year prior.The Serie's long term average value is 4.40 Million. It's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is -5.20 Million lower, compared to it's long term average value.The Serie's change from it's minimum value, on 12/31/2020, to it's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is +48.28 Million.The Serie's change from it's maximum value, on 8/31/2020, to it's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is -46.11 Million.

Time series data for the statistic Trade_Balance_Guinea_with_Somalia. Indicator Definition:Goods, Value of Trade Balance, US DollarsThe indicator "Goods, Value of Trade Balance, US Dollars" stands at -0.077 Thousand as of 5/31/2025, the lowest value since 2/28/2025. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes a decrease of -13.24 percent compared to the value the year prior.The 1 year change in percent is -13.24.The 3 year change in percent is 12.50.The 5 year change in percent is -87.80.The 10 year change in percent is 87.25.The Serie's long term average value is -9.48 Thousand. It's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is 99.19 percent higher, compared to it's long term average value.The Serie's change from it's minimum value, on 3/31/1994, to it's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is +107.32 Thousand.The Serie's change from it's maximum value, on 2/29/2016, to it's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is -0.051 Thousand.

Abstract

Motivation: creating challenging dataset for testing Named-Entity

Linking. The Namesakes dataset consists of three closely related datasets: Entities, News and Backlinks. Entities were collected as Wikipedia text chunks corresponding to highly ambiguous entity names. The News were collected as random news text chunks, containing mentions that either belong to the Entities dataset or can be easily confused with them. Backlinks were obtained from Wikipedia dump data with intention to have mentions linked to the entities of the Entity dataset. The Entities and News are human-labeled, resolving the mentions of the entities.Methods

Entities were collected as Wikipedia 

text chunks corresponding to highly ambiguous entity names: the most popular people names, the most popular locations, and organizations with name ambiguity. In each Entities text chunk, the named entities with the name similar to the chunk Wikipedia page name are labeled. For labeling, these entities were suggested to human annotators (odetta.ai) to tag as "Same" (same as the page entity) or "Other". The labeling was done by 6 experienced annotators that passed through a preliminary trial task. The only accepted tags are the tags assigned in agreement by not less than 5 annotators, and then passed through reconciliation with an experienced reconciliator.

The News were collected as random news text chunks, containing mentions which either belong to the Entities dataset or can be easily confused with them. In each News text chunk one mention was selected for labeling, and 3-10 Wikipedia pages from Entities were suggested as the labels for an annotator to choose from. The labeling was done by 3 experienced annotators (odetta.ai), after the annotators passed a preliminary trial task. The results were reconciled by an experienced reconciliator. All the labeling was done using Lighttag (lighttag.io).

Backlinks were obtained from Wikipedia dump data (dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20210701) with intention to have mentions linked to the entities of the Entity dataset. The backlinks were filtered to leave only mentions in a good quality text; each text was cut 1000 characters after the last mention.

Usage NotesEntities:

File: Namesakes_entities.jsonl The Entities dataset consists of 4148 Wikipedia text chunks containing human-tagged mentions of entities. Each mention is tagged either as "Same" (meaning that the mention is of this Wikipedia page entity), or "Other" (meaning that the mention is of some other entity, just having the same or similar name). The Entities dataset is a jsonl list, each item is a dictionary with the following keys and values: Key: ‘pagename’: page name of the Wikipedia page. Key ‘pageid’: page id of the Wikipedia page. Key ‘title’: title of the Wikipedia page. Key ‘url’: URL of the Wikipedia page. Key ‘text’: The text chunk from the Wikipedia page. Key ‘entities’: list of the mentions in the page text, each entity is represented by a dictionary with the keys: Key 'text': the mention as a string from the page text. Key ‘start’: start character position of the entity in the text. Key ‘end’: end (one-past-last) character position of the entity in the text. Key ‘tag’: annotation tag given as a string - either ‘Same’ or ‘Other’.

News: File: Namesakes_news.jsonl The News dataset consists of 1000 news text chunks, each one with a single annotated entity mention. The annotation either points to the corresponding entity from the Entities dataset (if the mention is of that entity), or indicates that the mentioned entity does not belong to the Entities dataset. The News dataset is a jsonl list, each item is a dictionary with the following keys and values: Key ‘id_text’: Id of the sample. Key ‘text’: The text chunk. Key ‘urls’: List of URLs of wikipedia entities suggested to labelers for identification of the entity mentioned in the text. Key ‘entity’: a dictionary describing the annotated entity mention in the text: Key 'text': the mention as a string found by an NER model in the text. Key ‘start’: start character position of the mention in the text. Key ‘end’: end (one-past-last) character position of the mention in the text. Key 'tag': This key exists only if the mentioned entity is annotated as belonging to the Entities dataset - if so, the value is a dictionary identifying the Wikipedia page assigned by annotators to the mentioned entity: Key ‘pageid’: Wikipedia page id. Key ‘pagetitle’: page title. Key 'url': page URL.

Backlinks dataset: The Backlinks dataset consists of two parts: dictionary Entity-to-Backlinks and Backlinks documents. The dictionary points to backlinks for each entity of the Entity dataset (if any backlinks exist for the entity). The Backlinks documents are the backlinks Wikipedia text chunks with identified mentions of the entities from the Entities dataset.

Each mention is identified by surrounded double square brackets, e.g. "Muir built a small cabin along [[Yosemite Creek]].". However, if the mention differs from the exact entity name, the double square brackets wrap both the exact name and, separated by '|', the mention string to the right, for example: "Muir also spent time with photographer [[Carleton E. Watkins | Carleton Watkins]] and studied his photographs of Yosemite.".

The Entity-to-Backlinks is a jsonl with 1527 items. File: Namesakes_backlinks_entities.jsonl Each item is a tuple: Entity name. Entity Wikipedia page id. Backlinks ids: a list of pageids of backlink documents.

The Backlinks documents is a jsonl with 26903 items. File: Namesakes_backlinks_texts.jsonl Each item is a dictionary: Key ‘pageid’: Id of the Wikipedia page. Key ‘title’: Title of the Wikipedia page. Key 'content': Text chunk from the Wikipedia page, with all mentions in the double brackets; the text is cut 1000 characters after the last mention, the cut is denoted as '...[CUT]'. Key 'mentions': List of the mentions from the text, for convenience. Each mention is a tuple: Entity name. Entity Wikipedia page id. Sorted list of all character indexes at which the mention occurrences start in the text.

This table contains data on the percent of population age 25 and up with a four-year college degree or higher for California, its regions, counties, county subdivisions, cities, towns, and census tracts. Greater educational attainment has been associated with health-promoting behaviors including consumption of fruits and vegetables and other aspects of healthy eating, engaging in regular physical activity, and refraining from excessive consumption of alcohol and from smoking. Completion of formal education (e.g., high school) is a key pathway to employment and access to healthier and higher paying jobs that can provide food, housing, transportation, health insurance, and other basic necessities for a healthy life. Education is linked with social and psychological factors, including sense of control, social standing and social support. These factors can improve health through reducing stress, influencing health-related behaviors and providing practical and emotional support. More information on the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Data and Resources section. The educational attainment table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project (HCI) of the Office of Health Equity. The goal of HCI is to enhance public health by providing data, a standardized set of statistical measures, and tools that a broad array of sectors can use for planning healthy communities and evaluating the impact of plans, projects, policy, and environmental changes on community health. The creation of healthy social, economic, and physical environments that promote healthy behaviors and healthy outcomes requires coordination and collaboration across multiple sectors, including transportation, housing, education, agriculture and others. Statistical metrics, or indicators, are needed to help local, regional, and state public health and partner agencies assess community environments and plan for healthy communities that optimize public health. More information on HCI can be found here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Accessible%202%20CDPH_Healthy_Community_Indicators1pager5-16-12.pdf The format of the educational attainment table is based on the standardized data format for all HCI indicators. As a result, this data table contains certain variables used in the HCI project (e.g., indicator ID, and indicator definition). Some of these variables may contain the same value for all observations.

Site data contained in the ScrIntrvls_AllSrcRefs_AllWellsRev.csv dataset define the top and bottom altitudes of well screens in 64,763 irrigation wells completed in the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer (MRVA) that constitute a production zone in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAP) extending across the midwestern and southern United States from Illinois to Louisiana. Each well entry contains an Enumerated Domain Value of the Attribute Label SrcRefNo to identify the state environmental agency that contributed to the database, and enumerated values are associated with specific state agencies by using the Enumerated Domain Value Definition. Screen-top and -bottom altitudes and land surface are referenced (corrected) to the National Elevation Dataset (NED) 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM; https://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html). The dataset identifies 50,103 screen-bottom altitudes and 50,457 screen-top altitudes that were used in subsequent geostatistical estimation after spatial analytics filtered out duplicate-coordinate wells, geographic and stratigraphic outliers, and incongruities of screen-top and -bottom altitudes compared with DEM land-surface altitude and the published digital surface of the bottom altitude of the MRVA (https://doi.org/10.3133/sim3426). Well entries are indexed in the dataset to identify use in four regional geostatistical models that collectively encompass the MAP extent and provide gridded estimates of screen-top and-bottom altitudes and estimation uncertainty (estimation variance) associated with each gridded altitude estimate. Digital surfaces of screen-top and -bottom estimates and estimation variances are represented as raster datasets that were converted to netCDF format and conform with the previously published National Hydrologic Grid (https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P84B24) at one-kilometer resolution. This dataset contains high-quality map images for gridded estimates of MRVA screen-top and -bottom altitude and for corresponding gridded estimation variances saved in the Tagged Image File (.tif) format.

This dataset contains data collected during a study "Transparency of open data ecosystems in smart cities: Definition and assessment of the maturity of transparency in 22 smart cities" (Sustainable Cities and Society (SCS), vol.82, 103906) conducted by Martin Lnenicka (University of Pardubice), Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu), Mariusz Luterek (University of Warsaw), Otmane Azeroual (German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies), Dandison Ukpabi (University of Jyväskylä), Visvaldis Valtenbergs (University of Latvia), Renata Machova (University of Pardubice).

This study inspects smart cities’ data portals and assesses their compliance with transparency requirements for open (government) data by means of the expert assessment of 34 portals representing 22 smart cities, with 36 features.

It being made public both to act as supplementary data for the paper and in order for other researchers to use these data in their own work potentially contributing to the improvement of current data ecosystems and build sustainable, transparent, citizen-centered, and socially resilient open data-driven smart cities.

Purpose of the expert assessment The data in this dataset were collected in the result of the applying the developed benchmarking framework for assessing the compliance of open (government) data portals with the principles of transparency-by-design proposed by Lněnička and Nikiforova (2021)* to 34 portals that can be considered to be part of open data ecosystems in smart cities, thereby carrying out their assessment by experts in 36 features context, which allows to rank them and discuss their maturity levels and (4) based on the results of the assessment, defining the components and unique models that form the open data ecosystem in the smart city context.

Methodology Sample selection: the capitals of the Member States of the European Union and countries of the European Economic Area were selected to ensure a more coherent political and legal framework. They were mapped/cross-referenced with their rank in 5 smart city rankings: IESE Cities in Motion Index, Top 50 smart city governments (SCG), IMD smart city index (SCI), global cities index (GCI), and sustainable cities index (SCI). A purposive sampling method and systematic search for portals was then carried out to identify relevant websites for each city using two complementary techniques: browsing and searching. To evaluate the transparency maturity of data ecosystems in smart cities, we have used the transparency-by-design framework (Lněnička & Nikiforova, 2021)*. The benchmarking supposes the collection of quantitative data, which makes this task an acceptability task. A six-point Likert scale was applied for evaluating the portals. Each sub-dimension was supplied with its description to ensure the common understanding, a drop-down list to select the level at which the respondent (dis)agree, and a comment to be provided, which has not been mandatory. This formed a protocol to be fulfilled on every portal. Each sub-dimension/feature was assessed using a six-point Likert scale, where strong agreement is assessed with 6 points, while strong disagreement is represented by 1 point. Each website (portal) was evaluated by experts, where a person is considered to be an expert if a person works with open (government) data and data portals daily, i.e., it is the key part of their job, which can be public officials, researchers, and independent organizations. In other words, compliance with the expert profile according to the International Certification of Digital Literacy (ICDL) and its derivation proposed in Lněnička et al. (2021)* is expected to be met. When all individual protocols were collected, mean values and standard deviations (SD) were calculated, and if statistical contradictions/inconsistencies were found, reassessment took place to ensure individual consistency and interrater reliability among experts’ answers. *Lnenicka, M., & Nikiforova, A. (2021). Transparency-by-design: What is the role of open data portals?. Telematics and Informatics, 61, 101605 *Lněnička, M., Machova, R., Volejníková, J., Linhartová, V., Knezackova, R., & Hub, M. (2021). Enhancing transparency through open government data: the case of data portals and their features and capabilities. Online Information Review.

Test procedure (1) perform an assessment of each dimension using sub-dimensions, mapping out the achievement of each indicator (2) all sub-dimensions in one dimension are aggregated, and then the average value is calculated based on the number of sub-dimensions – the resulting average stands for a dimension value - eight values per portal (3) the average value from all dimensions are calculated and then mapped to the maturity level – this value of each portal is also used to rank the portals.

Description of the data in this data set Sheet#1 "comparison_overall" provides results by portal Sheet#2 "comparison_category" provides results by portal and category Sheet#3 "category_subcategory" provides list of categories and its elements

Format of the file .xls

Licenses or restrictions CC-BY

For more info, see README.txt