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 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

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.

Data description

This dataset is dedicated to benchmarking Machine Learning solutions to the problem of estimation of the components of the state vector in nonlinear dynamical systems.

The dataset is built using two dynamical systems, namely:

• The Electronic Throttle Controlled (ETC) system representing a technological device that controls the air flow rate in automotive motors. This is a three-states system in which only the first state and the control input are measured while the other two states are to be estimated using the previous available measurements. The system is controlled via an input signal (which is also measured) representing the electric current that acts on an electric torque generation sub-system. This torque changes acts on the angle of a device hence changing the flow-rate entering the combustion chamber.

• The Lorentz attractor representing a famous nonlinear chaotic system with no inputs (autonomous system). Here again, this is a three-states system in which only the first state is measured while the two remaining states are to be estimated using the available measurements over a past window.

Some definitions and notation to understand the context

The state vector and the control input (if any) are denoted by x and u respectively. Both systems are defined up to the knowledge of an associated vector of parameters p involved in the model's definition.

The very possibility of estimating the non measured components xi of the states, such as x2 and x3 in the data set of both systems relies on the existence of an associated maps of the form:

xi(k) = Fi(y_past(k), p)

where y_past encompasses the measurement acquired on some past moving window spanning the past time interval defined by:

(k-window, ..., k-1, k).

More precisely, the vector of features (used in the X features matrix) is built from the values of the measurements over the previously defined time interval with some under-sampling consisting in taking one value over nJump values. Namely when nJump=1 all the measurements are used while when nJump=5 only the fifth of the instantes are considered.

Based on the precious definitions, the features vector and the label to be identified are schematically shown in the figure below.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F9193311%2F595a8b464752a4e0eb31d431580b489b%2FCapture%20decran%202024-11-26%20a%2013.07.52.png?generation=1732623079125879&alt=media" alt="Description">

This is the main file containing the dictionary of the dataset the can be used as a benchmark for nonlinear state estimators design via Machine Learning.

The file contains a dictionary that can be acceded by using the pickle.load command:

import pickle 
data = pickle.load(open('data.pkl', 'rb')

The list of keys of the data dictionary is the following:

[('etc', 0.0, 'x2'),
 ('etc', 0.0, 'x3'),
 ('etc', 0.05, 'x2'),
 ('etc', 0.05, 'x3'),
 ('etc', 0.1, 'x2'),
 ('etc', 0.1, 'x3'),
 ('lorentz', 0.0, 'x2'),
 ('lorentz', 0.0, 'x3'),
 ('lorentz', 0.05, 'x2'),
 ('lorentz', 0.05, 'x3'),
 ('lorentz', 0.1, 'x2'),
 ('lorentz', 0.1, 'x3')]

Where each key is a triplet of values representing

• The system being considered: Possible values art etc or lorentz
• The relative standard deviation of the system's parameters: Possible values are 0, 0.05 or 0.1
• The state component to be estimated: Possible values are x2 or x3.

Notice that the noise level can be chosen and the corresponding noise added to the features matrices.

Once a key k is chosen among the above mentioned list, the corresponding value data[k] is again a dictionary enabling to access the (X,y) paires for training and test, namely:

data[k].Xtrain, data[k].Xtest, data[k].ytrain, data[k].ytest

Finally, in order to grasp an idea regarding the size of the datasets, the following script is used:

print(data[('etc', 0.0, 'x2')]['Xtrain'].shape)
print(data[('etc', 0.0, 'x2')]['Xtest'].shape)
print(data[('lorentz', 0.0, 'x2')]['Xtrain'].shape)
print(data[('lorentz', 0.0, 'x2')]['Xtest'].shape)

which produces the following results:

(136000, 30) (136000, 30) (44000, 5) (44000, 5)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Field Name Data Type Description

Statefp Number US Census Bureau unique identifier of the state

Countyfp Number US Census Bureau unique identifier of the county

Countynm Text County name

Tractce Number US Census Bureau unique identifier of the census tract

Geoid Number US Census Bureau unique identifier of the state + county + census tract

Aland Number US Census Bureau defined land area of the census tract

Awater Number US Census Bureau defined water area of the census tract

Asqmi Number Area calculated in square miles from the Aland

MSSAid Text ID of the Medical Service Study Area (MSSA) the census tract belongs to

MSSAnm Text Name of the Medical Service Study Area (MSSA) the census tract belongs to

Definition Text Type of MSSA, possible values are urban, rural and frontier.

TotalPovPop Number US Census Bureau total population for whom poverty status is determined of the census tract, taken from the 2020 ACS 5 YR S1701

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

The Preferences service provides a means to store, retrieve, and manage user preferences. The service supports definition of enterprise wide preferences, as well as preferences that are specific to an application or business domain. The service supports dynamic creation and modification of preference definitions, supports the dynamic setting and modification of preference values,and supports governance of changes to preference domain definitions, preference definitions, and changes to preference values.

This fileset provides supporting data and corpora for the empirical study described in: Laura Miron, Rafael S. Goncalves and Mark A. Musen. Obstacles to the Reuse of Metadata in ClinicalTrials.govDescription of filesOriginal data files:- AllPublicXml.zip contains the set of all public XML records in ClinicalTrials.gov (protocols and summary results information), on which all remaining analyses are based. Set contains 302,091 records downloaded on April 3, 2019.- public.xsd is the XML schema downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov on April 3, 2019, used to validate records in AllPublicXML.BioPortal API Query Results- condition_matches.csv contains the results of querying the BioPortal API for all ontology terms that are an 'exact match' to each condition string scraped from the ClinicalTrials.gov XML. Columns={filename, condition, url, bioportal term, cuis, tuis}. - intervention_matches.csv contains BioPortal API query results for all interventions scraped from the ClinicalTrials.gov XML. Columns={filename, intervention, url, bioportal term, cuis, tuis}.Data Element Definitions- supplementary_table_1.xlsx Mapping of element names, element types, and whether elements are required in ClinicalTrials.gov data dictionaries, the ClinicalTrials.gov XML schema declaration for records (public.XSD), the Protocol Registration System (PRS), FDAAA801, and the WHO required data elements for clinical trial registrations.Column and value definitions: - CT.gov Data Dictionary Section: Section heading for a group of data elements in the ClinicalTrials.gov data dictionary (https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/definitions.html) - CT.gov Data Dictionary Element Name: Name of an element/field according to the ClinicalTrials.gov data dictionaries (https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/definitions.html) and (https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/expanded_access_definitions.html) - CT.gov Data Dictionary Element Type: "Data" if the element is a field for which the user provides a value, "Group Heading" if the element is a group heading for several sub-fields, but is not in itself associated with a user-provided value. - Required for CT.gov for Interventional Records: "Required" if the element is required for interventional records according to the data dictionary, "CR" if the element is conditionally required, "Jan 2017" if the element is required for studies starting on or after January 18, 2017, the effective date of the FDAAA801 Final Rule, "-" indicates if this element is not applicable to interventional records (only observational or expanded access) - Required for CT.gov for Observational Records: "Required" if the element is required for interventional records according to the data dictionary, "CR" if the element is conditionally required, "Jan 2017" if the element is required for studies starting on or after January 18, 2017, the effective date of the FDAAA801 Final Rule, "-" indicates if this element is not applicable to observational records (only interventional or expanded access) - Required in CT.gov for Expanded Access Records?: "Required" if the element is required for interventional records according to the data dictionary, "CR" if the element is conditionally required, "Jan 2017" if the element is required for studies starting on or after January 18, 2017, the effective date of the FDAAA801 Final Rule, "-" indicates if this element is not applicable to expanded access records (only interventional or observational) - CT.gov XSD Element Definition: abbreviated xpath to the corresponding element in the ClinicalTrials.gov XSD (public.XSD). The full xpath includes 'clinical_study/' as a prefix to every element. (There is a single top-level element called "clinical_study" for all other elements.) - Required in XSD? : "Yes" if the element is required according to public.XSD, "No" if the element is optional, "-" if the element is not made public or included in the XSD - Type in XSD: "text" if the XSD type was "xs:string" or "textblock", name of enum given if type was enum, "integer" if type was "xs:integer" or "xs:integer" extended with the "type" attribute, "struct" if the type was a struct defined in the XSD - PRS Element Name: Name of the corresponding entry field in the PRS system - PRS Entry Type: Entry type in the PRS system. This column contains some free text explanations/observations - FDAAA801 Final Rule FIeld Name: Name of the corresponding required field in the FDAAA801 Final Rule (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/21/2016-22129/clinical-trials-registration-and-results-information-submission). This column contains many empty values where elements in ClinicalTrials.gov do not correspond to a field required by the FDA - WHO Field Name: Name of the corresponding field required by the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (v 1.3.1) (https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/trainTrainer/WHO-ICMJE-ClinTrialsgov-Cross-Ref.pdf)Analytical Results:- EC_human_review.csv contains the results of a manual review of random sample eligibility criteria from 400 CT.gov records. Table gives filename, criteria, and whether manual review determined the criteria to contain criteria for "multiple subgroups" of participants.- completeness.xlsx contains counts and percentages of interventional records missing fields required by FDAAA801 and its Final Rule.- industry_completeness.xlsx contains percentages of interventional records missing required fields, broken up by agency class of trial's lead sponsor ("NIH", "US Fed", "Industry", or "Other"), and before and after the effective date of the Final Rule- location_completeness.xlsx contains percentages of interventional records missing required fields, broken up by whether record listed at least one location in the United States and records with only international location (excluding trials with no listed location), and before and after the effective date of the Final RuleIntermediate Results:- cache.zip contains pickle and csv files of pandas dataframes with values scraped from the XML records in AllPublicXML. Downloading these files greatly speeds up running analysis steps from jupyter notebooks in our github repository.

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.

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

Time series data for the statistic Trade_Balance_United_States_with_Iceland. Indicator Definition:Goods, Value of Trade Balance, US DollarsThe indicator "Goods, Value of Trade Balance, US Dollars" stands at 67.13 Million as of 5/31/2025, the highest value since 12/31/2024. Regarding the One-Year-Change of the series, the current value constitutes an increase of 68.33 Million compared to the value the year prior.The Serie's long term average value is 2.92 Million. It's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is 64.21 Million higher, compared to it's long term average value.The Serie's change from it's minimum value, on 7/31/2024, to it's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is +163.39 Million.The Serie's change from it's maximum value, on 5/31/2007, to it's latest available value, on 5/31/2025, is -55.27 Million.

DESCRIPTION

Create a model that predicts whether or not a loan will be default using the historical data.

Problem Statement:

For companies like Lending Club correctly predicting whether or not a loan will be a default is very important. In this project, using the historical data from 2007 to 2015, you have to build a deep learning model to predict the chance of default for future loans. As you will see later this dataset is highly imbalanced and includes a lot of features that make this problem more challenging.

Domain: Finance

Analysis to be done: Perform data preprocessing and build a deep learning prediction model.

Content:

Dataset columns and definition:

credit.policy: 1 if the customer meets the credit underwriting criteria of LendingClub.com, and 0 otherwise.

purpose: The purpose of the loan (takes values "credit_card", "debt_consolidation", "educational", "major_purchase", "small_business", and "all_other").

int.rate: The interest rate of the loan, as a proportion (a rate of 11% would be stored as 0.11). Borrowers judged by LendingClub.com to be more risky are assigned higher interest rates.

installment: The monthly installments owed by the borrower if the loan is funded.

log.annual.inc: The natural log of the self-reported annual income of the borrower.

dti: The debt-to-income ratio of the borrower (amount of debt divided by annual income).

fico: The FICO credit score of the borrower.

days.with.cr.line: The number of days the borrower has had a credit line.

revol.bal: The borrower's revolving balance (amount unpaid at the end of the credit card billing cycle).

revol.util: The borrower's revolving line utilization rate (the amount of the credit line used relative to total credit available).

inq.last.6mths: The borrower's number of inquiries by creditors in the last 6 months.

delinq.2yrs: The number of times the borrower had been 30+ days past due on a payment in the past 2 years.

pub.rec: The borrower's number of derogatory public records (bankruptcy filings, tax liens, or judgments).

Steps to perform:

Perform exploratory data analysis and feature engineering and then apply feature engineering. Follow up with a deep learning model to predict whether or not the loan will be default using the historical data.

Tasks:

1. Feature Transformation

Transform categorical values into numerical values (discrete)

1. Exploratory data analysis of different factors of the dataset.

2. Additional Feature Engineering

You will check the correlation between features and will drop those features which have a strong correlation

This will help reduce the number of features and will leave you with the most relevant features

1. Modeling

After applying EDA and feature engineering, you are now ready to build the predictive models

In this part, you will create a deep learning model using Keras with Tensorflow backend

Data dictionary for Gridded National Soil Survey Geographic Database (gNATSGO). https://data.nal.usda.gov/node/23067gNATSGO has a schema that is very similar to that of SSURGO and STATSGO2. A CSV version of the data dictionary is presented.A data dictionary typically provides a detailed description for each element or variable in a dataset or data model. Data dictionaries are used to document important and useful information such as a descriptive name, the data type, allowed values, units, and text description.Dataset citation: (dataset) Soil Survey Staff. Gridded National Soil Survey Geographic (gNATSGO) Database for [State name -or- the Conterminous United States]. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/soils. Month, day, year.

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.