This dataset contains Saudi Arabia The Available Power Capacities According to Sources Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture Capacity, Export API data for more datasets to advance energy economics research

The peer-reviewed publication for this dataset has been presented in the 2022 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), and can be accessed here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02596. Please cite this when using the dataset.

This dataset contains a heterogeneous set of True and False COVID claims and online sources of information for each claim.

The claims have been obtained from online fact-checking sources, existing datasets and research challenges. It combines different data sources with different foci, thus enabling a comprehensive approach that combines different media (Twitter, Facebook, general websites, academia), information domains (health, scholar, media), information types (news, claims) and applications (information retrieval, veracity evaluation).

The processing of the claims included an extensive de-duplication process eliminating repeated or very similar claims. The dataset is presented in a LARGE and a SMALL version, accounting for different degrees of similarity between the remaining claims (excluding respectively claims with a 90% and 99% probability of being similar, as obtained through the MonoT5 model). The similarity of claims was analysed using BM25 (Robertson et al., 1995; Crestani et al., 1998; Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009) with MonoT5 re-ranking (Nogueira et al., 2020), and BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2019).

The processing of the content also involved removing claims making only a direct reference to existing content in other media (audio, video, photos); automatically obtained content not representing claims; and entries with claims or fact-checking sources in languages other than English.

The claims were analysed to identify types of claims that may be of particular interest, either for inclusion or exclusion depending on the type of analysis. The following types were identified: (1) Multimodal; (2) Social media references; (3) Claims including questions; (4) Claims including numerical content; (5) Named entities, including: PERSON − People, including fictional; ORGANIZATION − Companies, agencies, institutions, etc.; GPE − Countries, cities, states; FACILITY − Buildings, highways, etc. These entities have been detected using a RoBERTa base English model (Liu et al., 2019) trained on the OntoNotes Release 5.0 dataset (Weischedel et al., 2013) using Spacy.

The original labels for the claims have been reviewed and homogenised from the different criteria used by each original fact-checker into the final True and False labels.

The data sources used are:

• The CoronaVirusFacts/DatosCoronaVirus Alliance Database. https://www.poynter.org/ifcn-covid-19-misinformation/

• CoAID dataset (Cui and Lee, 2020) https://github.com/cuilimeng/CoAID

• MM-COVID (Li et al., 2020) https://github.com/bigheiniu/MM-COVID

• CovidLies (Hossain et al., 2020) https://github.com/ucinlp/covid19-data

• TREC Health Misinformation track https://trec-health-misinfo.github.io/

• TREC COVID challenge (Voorhees et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2020) https://ir.nist.gov/covidSubmit/data.html

The LARGE dataset contains 5,143 claims (1,810 False and 3,333 True), and the SMALL version 1,709 claims (477 False and 1,232 True).

The entries in the dataset contain the following information:

• Claim. Text of the claim.

• Claim label. The labels are: False, and True.

• Claim source. The sources include mostly fact-checking websites, health information websites, health clinics, public institutions sites, and peer-reviewed scientific journals.

• Original information source. Information about which general information source was used to obtain the claim.

• Claim type. The different types, previously explained, are: Multimodal, Social Media, Questions, Numerical, and Named Entities.

Funding. This work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant no. EP/V048597/1, EP/T017112/1). ML and YH are supported by Turing AI Fellowships funded by the UK Research and Innovation (grant no. EP/V030302/1, EP/V020579/1).

References

• Arana-Catania M., Kochkina E., Zubiaga A., Liakata M., Procter R., He Y.. Natural Language Inference with Self-Attention for Veracity Assessment of Pandemic Claims. NAACL 2022 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02596

• Stephen E Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline M Hancock-Beaulieu, Mike Gatford, et al. 1995. Okapi at trec-3. Nist Special Publication Sp,109:109.

• Fabio Crestani, Mounia Lalmas, Cornelis J Van Rijsbergen, and Iain Campbell. 1998. “is this document relevant?. . . probably” a survey of probabilistic models in information retrieval. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 30(4):528–552.

• Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Now Publishers Inc.

• Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pre-trained sequence-to-sequence model. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings, pages 708–718.

• Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

• Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.

• Ralph Weischedel, Martha Palmer, Mitchell Marcus, Eduard Hovy, Sameer Pradhan, Lance Ramshaw, Nianwen Xue, Ann Taylor, Jeff Kaufman, Michelle Franchini, et al. 2013. Ontonotes release 5.0 ldc2013t19. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, PA, 23.

• Limeng Cui and Dongwon Lee. 2020. Coaid: Covid-19 healthcare misinformation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00885.

• Yichuan Li, Bohan Jiang, Kai Shu, and Huan Liu. 2020. Mm-covid: A multilingual and multimodal data repository for combating covid-19 disinformation.

• Tamanna Hossain, Robert L. Logan IV, Arjuna Ugarte, Yoshitomo Matsubara, Sean Young, and Sameer Singh. 2020. COVIDLies: Detecting COVID-19 misinformation on social media. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 (Part 2) at EMNLP 2020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.

• Ellen Voorhees, Tasmeer Alam, Steven Bedrick, Dina Demner-Fushman, William R Hersh, Kyle Lo, Kirk Roberts, Ian Soboroff, and Lucy Lu Wang. 2021. Trec-covid: constructing a pandemic information retrieval test collection. In ACM SIGIR Forum, volume 54, pages 1–12. ACM New York, NY, USA.

The Learning Resources Database is a catalog of interactive tutorials, videos, online classes, finding aids, and other instructional resources on National Library of Medicine (NLM) products and services. Resources may be available for immediate use via a browser or downloadable for use in course management systems

Dataset Description

It contains 520 rows and 13 variables as listed below - - Resource ID : Alphanumeric identifier - Resource Name : Title of the resource - Resource URL : Link of the resource - Description : Brief explanation on the reource - Archived : Flagged as False for all data points - Format : Format of the resource ex. HTML, PDF, MP4 video , MS Word, Powerpoint etc. - Type : Type of the resource ex Webinar, document, tutorial, slides etc. - Runtime : Runtime of the resource - Subject Areas : Topic covered in reource - Authoring Organization : Name of the Authoring Organization - Intended Audiences : Profile of the intended audience - Record Modified : Timestamp info on record last modification - Resource Revised : Timestamp info on resource last modified

U.S. Geological Survey scientists, funded by the Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program, developed a dataset of 2006 and 2011 land use and land cover (LULC) information for selected 100-km2 sample blocks within 29 EPA Level 3 ecoregions across the conterminous United States. The data was collected for validation of new and existing national scale LULC datasets developed from remotely sensed data sources. The data can also be used with the previously published Land Cover Trends Dataset: 1973-2000 (http:// http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/844/), to assess land-use/land-cover change in selected ecoregions over a 37-year study period. LULC data for 2006 and 2011 was manually delineated using the same sample block classification procedures as the previous Land Cover Trends project. The methodology is based on a statistical sampling approach, manual classification of land use and land cover, and post-classification comparisons of land cover across different dates. Landsat Thematic Mapper, and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus imagery was interpreted using a modified Anderson Level I classification scheme. Landsat data was acquired from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) collection of images. For the 2006 and 2011 update, ecoregion specific alterations in the sampling density were made to expedite the completion of manual block interpretations. The data collection process started with the 2000 date from the previous assessment and any needed corrections were made before interpreting the next two dates of 2006 and 2011 imagery. The 2000 land cover was copied and any changes seen in the 2006 Landsat images were digitized into a new 2006 land cover image. Similarly, the 2011 land cover image was created after completing the 2006 delineation. Results from analysis of these data include ecoregion based statistical estimates of the amount of LULC change per time period, ranking of the most common types of conversions, rates of change, and percent composition. Overall estimated amount of change per ecoregion from 2001 to 2011 ranged from a low of 370 km2 in the Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion to a high of 78,782 km2 in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion. The Southeastern Plains Ecoregion continues to encompass the most intense forest harvesting and regrowth in the country. Forest harvesting and regrowth rates in the southeastern U.S. and Pacific Northwest continued at late 20th century levels. The land use and land cover data collected by this study is ideally suited for training, validation, and regional assessments of land use and land cover change in the U.S. because it is collected using manual interpretation techniques of Landsat data aided by high resolution photography. The 2001-2011 Land Cover Trends Dataset is provided in an Albers Conical Equal Area projection using the NAD 1983 datum. The sample blocks have a 30-meter resolution and file names follow a specific naming convention that includes the number of the ecoregion containing the block, the block number, and the Landsat image date. The data files are organized by ecoregion, and are available in the ERDAS Imagine (.img) format. U.S. Geological Survey scientists, funded by the Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program, developed a dataset of 2006 and 2011 land use and land cover (LULC) information for selected 100-km2 sample blocks within 29 EPA Level 3 ecoregions across the conterminous United States. The data was collected for validation of new and existing national scale LULC datasets developed from remotely sensed data sources. The data can also be used with the previously published Land Cover Trends Dataset: 1973-2000 (http:// http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/844/), to assess land-use/land-cover change in selected ecoregions over a 37-year study period. LULC data for 2006 and 2011 was manually delineated using the same sample block classification procedures as the previous Land Cover Trends project. The methodology is based on a statistical sampling approach, manual classification of land use and land cover, and post-classification comparisons of land cover across different dates. Landsat Thematic Mapper, and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus imagery was interpreted using a modified Anderson Level I classification scheme. Landsat data was acquired from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) collection of images. For the 2006 and 2011 update, ecoregion specific alterations in the sampling density were made to expedite the completion of manual block interpretations. The data collection process started with the 2000 date from the previous assessment and any needed corrections were made before interpreting the next two dates of 2006 and 2011 imagery. The 2000 land cover was copied and any changes seen in the 2006 Landsat images were digitized into a new 2006 land cover image. Similarly, the 2011 land cover image was created after completing the 2006 delineation. Results from analysis of these data include ecoregion based statistical estimates of the amount of LULC change per time period, ranking of the most common types of conversions, rates of change, and percent composition. Overall estimated amount of change per ecoregion from 2001 to 2011 ranged from a low of 370 square km in the Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion to a high of 78,782 square km in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion. The Southeastern Plains Ecoregion continues to encompass the most intense forest harvesting and regrowth in the country. Forest harvesting and regrowth rates in the southeastern U.S. and Pacific Northwest continued at late 20th century levels. The land use and land cover data collected by this study is ideally suited for training, validation, and regional assessments of land use and land cover change in the U.S. because it’s collected using manual interpretation techniques of Landsat data aided by high resolution photography. The 2001-2011 Land Cover Trends Dataset is provided in an Albers Conical Equal Area projection using the NAD 1983 datum. The sample blocks have a 30-meter resolution and file names follow a specific naming convention that includes the number of the ecoregion containing the block, the block number, and the Landsat image date. The data files are organized by ecoregion, and are available in the ERDAS Imagine (.img) format.

We introduce a large-scale dataset of the complete texts of free/open source software (FOSS) license variants. To assemble it we have collected from the Software Heritage archive—the largest publicly available archive of FOSS source code with accompanying development history—all versions of files whose names are commonly used to convey licensing terms to software users and developers. The dataset consists of 6.5 million unique license files that can be used to conduct empirical studies on open source licensing, training of automated license classifiers, natural language processing (NLP) analyses of legal texts, as well as historical and phylogenetic studies on FOSS licensing. Additional metadata about shipped license files are also provided, making the dataset ready to use in various contexts; they include: file length measures, detected MIME type, detected SPDX license (using ScanCode), example origin (e.g., GitHub repository), oldest public commit in which the license appeared. The dataset is released as open data as an archive file containing all deduplicated license blobs, plus several portable CSV files for metadata, referencing blobs via cryptographic checksums.

For more details see the included README file and companion paper:

Stefano Zacchiroli. A Large-scale Dataset of (Open Source) License Text Variants. In proceedings of the 2022 Mining Software Repositories Conference (MSR 2022). 23-24 May 2022 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. ACM 2022.

If you use this dataset for research purposes, please acknowledge its use by citing the above paper.

Context

The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans to countries of the world for capital projects. The World Bank's stated goal is the reduction of poverty. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank

Content

This dataset combines key education statistics from a variety of sources to provide a look at global literacy, spending, and access.

For more information, see the World Bank website.

Fork this kernel to get started with this dataset.

Acknowledgements

https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/bigquery-public-data:world_bank_health_population

http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ed-stats

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/world-bank-education

Citation: The World Bank: Education Statistics

Dataset Source: World Bank. This dataset is publicly available for anyone to use under the following terms provided by the Dataset Source - http://www.data.gov/privacy-policy#data_policy - and is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset.

Banner Photo by @till_indeman from Unplash.

Inspiration

Of total government spending, what percentage is spent on education?

This dataset contains a collection of astrophysical object images organized for training, validating, and testing deep learning models — specifically designed to support Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) training for object classification tasks in astronomy and astrophysics.

The dataset was built by collecting and unifying images from multiple public sources and existing datasets on Kaggle and other open repositories. All images have been organized into structured class folders for consistency and ease of use in supervised learning.

We introduce a method for scaling two data sets from different sources. The proposed method estimates a latent factor common to both datasets as well as an idiosyncratic factor unique to each. In addition, it offers a flexible modeling strategy that permits the scaled locations to be a function of covariates, and efficient implementation allows for inference through resampling. A simulation study shows that our proposed method improves over existing alternatives in capturing the variation common to both datasets, as well as the latent factors specific to each. We apply our proposed method to vote and speech data from the 112th U.S. Senate. We recover a shared subspace that aligns with a standard ideological dimension running from liberals to conservatives while recovering the words most associated with each senator's location. In addition, we estimate a word-specific subspace that ranges from national security to budget concerns, and a vote-specific subspace with Tea Party senators on one extreme and senior committee leaders on the other.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Gratis by gender, including both male and female populations. This dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Gratis across both sexes and to determine which sex constitutes the majority.

Key observations

There is a slight majority of female population, with 50.0% of total population being female. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis. No further analysis is done on the data reported from the Census Bureau.

Variables / Data Columns

• Gender: This column displays the Gender (Male / Female)
• Population: The population of the gender in the Gratis is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each gender as a proportion of Gratis total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Gratis Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

UNESCO World Heritage Sites Dataset

UNESCO World Heritage Sites Dataset

By Throwback Thursday [source]

About this dataset

How to use the dataset

Here are some tips on how to make the most out of this dataset:

• Data Exploration:

  • Begin by understanding the structure and contents of the dataset. Evaluate the number of rows (sites) and columns (attributes) available.
  • Check for missing values or inconsistencies in data entry that may impact your analysis.
  • Assess column descriptions to understand what information is included in each attribute.

• Geographical Analysis:

  • Leverage geographical features such as latitude and longitude coordinates provided in this dataset.
  • Plot these sites on a map using any mapping software or library like Google Maps or Folium for Python. Visualizing their distribution can provide insights into patterns based on location, climate, or cultural factors.

• Analyzing Attributes:

  • Familiarize yourself with different attributes available for analysis. Possible attributes include Name, Description, Category, Region, Country, etc.
  • Understand each attribute's format and content type (categorical, numerical) for better utilization during data analysis.

• Exploring Categories & Regions:

  • Look at unique categories mentioned in the Category column (e.g., Cultural Site, Natural Site) to explore specific interests. This could help identify clusters within particular heritage types across countries/regions worldwide.
  • Analyze regions with high concentrations of heritage sites using data visualizations like bar plots or word clouds based on frequency counts.

• Identify Trends & Patterns:

  • Discover recurring themes across various sites by analyzing descriptive text attributes such as names and descriptions.
  • Identify patterns and correlations between attributes by performing statistical analysis or utilizing machine learning techniques.

• Comparison:

  • Compare different attributes to gain a deeper understanding of the sites.
  • For example, analyze the number of heritage sites per country/region or compare the distribution between cultural and natural heritage sites.

• Additional Data Sources:

  • Use this dataset as a foundation to combine it with other datasets for in-depth analysis. There are several sources available that provide additional data on UNESCO World Heritage Sites, such as travel blogs, official tourism websites, or academic research databases.

Remember to cite this dataset appropriately if you use it in

Research Ideas

• Travel Planning: This dataset can be used to identify and plan visits to UNESCO World Heritage sites around the world. It provides information about the location, category, and date of inscription for each site, allowing users to prioritize their travel destinations based on personal interests or preferences.
• Cultural Preservation: Researchers or organizations interested in cultural preservation can use this dataset to analyze trends in UNESCO World Heritage site listings over time. By studying factors such as geographical distribution, types of sites listed, and inscription dates, they can gain insights into patterns of cultural heritage recognition and protection.
• Statistical Analysis: The dataset can be used for statistical analysis to explore various aspects related to UNESCO World Heritage sites. For example, it could be used to examine the correlation between a country's economic indicators (such as GDP per capita) and the number or type of World Heritage sites it possesses. This analysis could provide insights into the relationship between economic development and cultural preservation efforts at a global scale

Acknowledgements

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

License

See the dataset description for more information.

Columns

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. If you use this dataset in your research, please credit Throwback Thursday.

Associations between health impact and other variables in RCEW data, CSEW data, and the imputed synthetic dataset.

Digital Ground Model Data Sources for King County and surrounding Kitsap, Island, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.

About the Merged Pokémon Dataset

Overview

This repository brings together two complementary Pokémon data sources into a single, unified dataset—available in both CSV—geared for building an end‑to‑end supervised machine‑learning model for Pokémon battle outcome prediction. By keeping only those Pokémon common to both sources, the merged dataset offers consistent IDs, names, stats, and battle records, laying the groundwork for accurate, reproducible model training and a polished Pokedex UI.

1. Data Sources

1. Kaggle “Pokémon Challenge”

   • URL: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/terminus7/pokemon-challenge

   • Contents:

     • pokemon.csv – base characteristics for each Pokémon (id, name, stats, types, generation, legendary flag)
     • combats.csv – simulated combat records (attacker id, defender id, winner id)

   • Original Scope: ~800 unique Pokémon; battle data generated by a custom algorithm to simplify in‑game mechanics

2. Anand Baraik’s Pokedex JSON

   • URL: https://github.com/anandbaraik/pokedex

   • Contents:

     • pokeData.ts – detailed entries per Pokémon, including name, type(s), base stats, sprite URLs.

2. Merge & Reduction

• Common Pokémon Only: We performed an inner join on the Kaggle and JSON datasets by Pokémon ID and name.

• Resulting Counts:

  • Pokémon: XX entries (reduced from ~800 to only those present in both sources)
  • Combat Records: YY total encounters, filtered to include only battles where both participants exist in the merged roster

3. File Formats

Here's a clear and presentable summary of the structure and contents of the final_pokemon.csv and final_combats.csv datasets:

1. final_pokemon.csv

This file contains detailed attributes for 697 unique Pokémon. Each row represents a single Pokémon.

📌 Columns (16 total):

2. final_combats.csv

This file captures data from 38,054 Pokémon battles, with each row representing a single combat.

📌 Columns (3 total):

Note: Pokémon IDs in this file correspond to the # column in final_pokemon.csv.

4. Notes & Considerations

• Reduction Impact: Some rare or region‑exclusive Pokémon may be dropped if they appear in only one source.
• Stat Consistency: We verified that base stats match between the two sources for each common Pokémon.
• Battle Data Simplification: As with the original Kaggle dataset, these battles do not model full in‑game mechanics (abilities, items, weather effects, etc.).

5. Current Usage & Future Plans

• Existing Pokedex UI:

  • [https://poke-dex-flask-vercel.vercel.app/)

• Early ML Model (Weedle’s Cave):

  • https://github.com/lmno3418/pokedex_render
  • Trained on a subset of battles (“Weedle’s Cav...

A generalized dataset of existing land use in the District of Columbia as existed during its most recent extract of the common ownership lots. This dataset is different from the Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use, which shows land use as envisioned in the latest version of DC’s Comprehensive Plan. The primary land use categories used in this dataset are similar, but not identical. The Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) compared two datasets to create this generalized existing land use data. The data source identifying property use is the Property Use Code Lookup from the Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR). An index provided by the Office of Planning assigns each OTR property use code with a “primary land use” designation. Through an automated process, the common ownership lots were then joined with this index to create the Existing Land Use. Only properties with an assigned use code from OTR are categorized. Other properties without a use code were left as NULL. Many of these tend to be public lands such as national parks. Refer to https://opendata.dc.gov/pages/public-lands.This dataset has no legal status and is intended primarily as a resource and informational tool. The Office of the Chief Technology Officer anticipates replicating this work annually.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of College Springs by gender, including both male and female populations. This dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of College Springs across both sexes and to determine which sex constitutes the majority.

Key observations

There is a majority of male population, with 56.68% of total population being male. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis. No further analysis is done on the data reported from the Census Bureau.

Variables / Data Columns

• Gender: This column displays the Gender (Male / Female)
• Population: The population of the gender in the College Springs is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each gender as a proportion of College Springs total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for College Springs Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

This file contains the complete catalog of datasets and publications reviewed in: Di Mauro A., Cominola A., Castelletti A., Di Nardo A.. Urban Water Consumption at Multiple Spatial and Temporal Scales. A Review of Existing Datasets. Water 2021.The complete catalog contains:

92 state-of-the-art water demand datasets identified at the district, household, and end use scales;

120 related peer-reviewed publications;

57 additional datasets with electricity demand data at the end use and household scales.

The following metadata are reported, for each dataset:

Authors

Year

Location

Dataset Size

Time Series Length

Time Sampling Resolution

Access Policy.

The following metadata are reported, for each publication:

Authors

Year

Journal

Title

Spatial Scale

Type of Study: Survey (S) / Dataset (D)

Domain: Water (W)/Electricity (E)

Time Sampling Resolution

Access Policy

Dataset Size

Time Series Length

Location

Authors: Anna Di Mauro - Department of Engineering | Università degli studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli (Italy) | anna.dimauro@unicampania.it; Andrea Cominola - Chair of Smart Water Networks | Technische Universität Berlin - Einstein Center Digital Future (Germany) | andrea.cominola@tu-berlin.de; Andrea Castelletti - Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering | Politecnico di Milano (Italy) | andrea.castelletti@polimi.it Armando Di Nardo -Department of Engineering | Università degli studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli (Italy) | armando.dinardo@unicampania.it

Citation and reference:

If you use this database, please consider citing our paper

Di Mauro, A., Cominola, A., Castelletti, A., & Di Nardo, A. (2021). Urban Water Consumption at Multiple Spatial and Temporal Scales. A Review of Existing Datasets. Water, 13(1), 36, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010036

Updates and Contributions:

The catalogue stored in this public repository can be collaboratively updated as more datasets become available. The authors will periodically update it to a new version.

New requests can be submitted to the authors, so that the dataset collection can be improved by different contributors. Contributors will be cited, step by step, in the updated versions of the dataset catalogue.

Updates history:

March 1st, 2021 - Pacheco, C.J.B., Horsburgh, J.S., Tracy, J.R. (Utah State University, Logan, UT - USA) --- The dataset associated with paper Bastidas Pacheco, C.J.; Horsburgh, J.S.; Tracy, R.J.. A Low-Cost, Open Source Monitoring System for Collecting High Temporal Resolution Water Use Data on Magnetically Driven Residential Water Meters. Sensors 2020, 20, 3655. is published in the HydroShare repository, where it is available as an OPEN dataset. Data can be found here: https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.4de42db6485f47b290bd9e17b017bb51

The spreadsheet “Evaluation of Candidate Indicators of Environmental Sustainability of Agriculture” presents the complete list of candidate indicators that were considered in the scoping analysis as well as the results of an assessment that determined the suitability of these candidate indicators against a defined set of evaluation criteria. The spreadsheet “Landscape of Existing Agri-Environmental Indicators” details the reports, indices, and datasets that were reviewed as part of a literature review to find and identify the best available indicators of environmental sustainability in agriculture.

I am a new developer and I would greatly appreciate your support. If you find this dataset helpful, please consider giving it an upvote!

Key Features:

Complete 1m Data: Raw 1m historical data from multiple exchanges, covering the entire trading history of BNBUSD available through their API endpoints. This dataset is updated daily to ensure up-to-date coverage.

Combined Index Dataset: A unique feature of this dataset is the combined index, which is derived by averaging all other datasets into one, please see attached notebook. This creates the longest continuous, unbroken BNBUSD dataset available on Kaggle, with no gaps and no erroneous values. It gives a much more comprehensive view of the market i.e. total volume across multiple exchanges.

Superior Performance: The combined index dataset has demonstrated superior 'mean average error' (MAE) metric performance when training machine learning models, compared to single-source datasets by a whole order of MAE magnitude.

Unbroken History: The combined dataset's continuous history is a valuable asset for researchers and traders who require accurate and uninterrupted time series data for modeling or back-testing.

https://i.imgur.com/aqtuPay.png" alt="BNBUSD Dataset Summary">

https://i.imgur.com/mnzs2f4.png" alt="Combined Dataset Close Plot"> This plot illustrates the continuity of the dataset over time, with no gaps in data, making it ideal for time series analysis.

Included Resources:

Two Notebooks:

Dataset Usage and Diagnostics: This notebook demonstrates how to use the dataset and includes a powerful data diagnostics function, which is useful for all time series analyses.

Aggregating Multiple Data Sources: This notebook walks you through the process of combining multiple exchange datasets into a single, clean dataset. (Currently unavailable, will be added shortly)

Descriptive statistics of sexual violence victim-survivors in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and Rape Crisis England & Wales (RCEW) datasets.

The QoG Institute is an independent research institute within the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. The main objective of our research is to address the theoretical and empirical problem of how political institutions of high quality can be created and maintained.

To achieve said goal, the QoG Institute makes comparative data on QoG and its correlates publicly available. To accomplish this, we have compiled several datasets that draw on a number of freely available data sources, including aggregated individual-level data.

The QoG OECD Datasets focus exclusively on OECD member countries. They have a high data coverage in terms of geography and time. In the QoG OECD TS dataset, data from 1946 to 2021 is included and the unit of analysis is country-year (e.g., Sweden-1946, Sweden-1947, etc.).

In the QoG OECD Cross-Section dataset, data from and around 2018 is included. Data from 2018 is prioritized, however, if no data are available for a country for 2018, data for 2019 is included. If no data for 2019 exists, data for 2017 is included, and so on up to a maximum of +/- 3 years. In the QoG OECD Time-Series dataset, data from 1946 to 2021 are included and the unit of analysis is country-year (e.g. Sweden-1946, Sweden-1947 and so on).

The QoG OECD Datasets focus exclusively on OECD member countries. They have a high data coverage in terms of geography and time.

In the QoG OECD Cross-Section dataset, data from and around 2018 is included. Data from 2018 is prioritized, however, if no data are available for a country for 2018, data for 2019 is included. If no data for 2019 exists, data for 2017 is included, and so on up to a maximum of +/- 3 years. In the QoG OECD Time-Series dataset, data from 1946 to 2021 are included and the unit of analysis is country-year (e.g. Sweden-1946, Sweden-1947 and so on).