2 datasets found
  1. A

    ‘Winter Olympics Prediction - Fantasy Draft Picks’ analyzed by Analyst-2

    • analyst-2.ai
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai) / Inspirient GmbH (inspirient.com), ‘Winter Olympics Prediction - Fantasy Draft Picks’ analyzed by Analyst-2 [Dataset]. https://analyst-2.ai/analysis/kaggle-winter-olympics-prediction-fantasy-draft-picks-2684/07d15ca8/?iid=004-773&v=presentation
    Explore at:
    Dataset authored and provided by
    Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai) / Inspirient GmbH (inspirient.com)
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Description

    Analysis of ‘Winter Olympics Prediction - Fantasy Draft Picks’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/ericsbrown/winter-olympics-prediction-fantasy-draft-picks on 28 January 2022.

    --- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

    Olympic Draft Predictive Model

    Our family runs an Olympic Draft - similar to fantasy football or baseball - for each Olympic cycle. The purpose of this case study is to identify trends in medal count / point value to create a predictive analysis of which teams should be selected in which order.

    There are a few assumptions that will impact the final analysis: Point Value - Each medal is worth the following: Gold - 6 points Silver - 4 points Bronze - 3 points For analysis reviewing the last 10 Olympic cycles. Winter Olympics only.

    All GDP numbers are in USD

    My initial hypothesis is that larger GDP per capita and size of contingency are correlated with better points values for the Olympic draft.

    All Data pulled from the following Datasets:

    Winter Olympics Medal Count - https://www.kaggle.com/ramontanoeiro/winter-olympic-medals-1924-2018 Worldwide GDP History - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2020&start=1984&view=chart

    GDP data was a wide format when downloaded from the World Bank. Opened file in Excel, removed irrelevant years, and saved as .csv.

    Process

    In RStudio utilized the following code to convert wide data to long:

    install.packages("tidyverse") library(tidyverse) library(tidyr)

    Converting to long data from wide

    long <- newgdpdata %>% gather(year, value, -c("Country Name","Country Code"))

    Completed these same steps for GDP per capita.

    Primary Key Creation

    Differing types of data between these two databases and there is not a good primary key to utilize. Used CONCAT to create a new key column in both combining the year and country code to create a unique identifier that matches between the datasets.

    SELECT *, CONCAT(year,country_code) AS "Primary" FROM medal_count

    Saved as new table "medals_w_primary"

    Utilized Excel to concatenate the primary key for GDP and GDP per capita utilizing:

    =CONCAT()

    Saved as new csv files.

    Uploaded all to SSMS.

    Contingent Size

    Next need to add contingent size.

    No existing database had this information. Pulled data from Wikipedia.

    2018 - No problem, pulled existing table. 2014 - Table was not created. Pulled information into excel, needed to convert the country NAMES into the country CODES.

    Created excel document with all ISO Country Codes. Items were broken down between both formats, either 2 or 3 letters. Example:

    AF/AFG

    Used =RIGHT(C1,3) to extract only the country codes.

    For the country participants list in 2014, copied source data from Wikipedia and pasted as plain text (not HTML).

    Items then showed as: Albania (2)

    Broke cells using "(" as the delimiter to separate country names and numbers, then find and replace to remove all parenthesis from this data.

    We were left with: Albania 2

    Used VLOOKUP to create correct country code: =VLOOKUP(A1,'Country Codes'!A:D,4,FALSE)

    This worked for almost all items with a few exceptions that didn't match. Based on nature and size of items, manually checked on which items were incorrect.

    Chinese Taipei 3 #N/A Great Britain 56 #N/A Virgin Islands 1 #N/A

    This was relatively easy to fix by adding corresponding line items to the Country Codes sheet to account for future variability in the country code names.

    Copied over to main sheet.

    Repeated this process for additional years.

    Once complete created sheet with all 10 cycles of data. In total there are 731 items.

    Data Cleaning

    Filtered by Country Code since this was an issue early on.

    Found a number of N/A Country Codes:

    Serbia and Montenegro FR Yugoslavia FR Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia Unified Team Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia East Germany West Germany Soviet Union Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia East Germany West Germany Soviet Union Yugoslavia

    Appears to be issues with older codes, Soviet Union block countries especially. Referred to historical data and filled in these country codes manually. Codes found on iso.org.

    Filled all in, one issue that was more difficult is the Unified Team of 1992 and Soviet Union. For simplicity used code for Russia - GDP data does not recognize the Soviet Union, breaks the union down to constituent countries. Using Russia is a reasonable figure for approximations and analysis to attempt to find trends.

    From here created a filter and scanned through the country names to ensure there were no obvious outliers. Found the following:

    Olympic Athletes from Russia[b] -- This is a one-off due to the recent PED controversy for Russia. Amended the Country Code to RUS to more accurately reflect the trends.

    Korea[a] and South Korea -- both were listed in 2018. This is due to the unified Korean team that competed. This is an outlier and does not warrant standing on its own as the 2022 Olympics will not have this team (as of this writing on 01/14/2022). Removed the COR country code item.

    Confirmed Primary Key was created for all entries.

    Ran minimum and maximum years, no unexpected values. Ran minimum and maximum Athlete numbers, no unexpected values. Confirmed length of columns for Country Code and Primary Key.

    No NULL values in any columns. Ready to import to SSMS.

    SQL work

    We now have 4 tables, joined together to create the master table:

    SELECT [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[year], host_country, host_city, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_name], [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_code], Gold, Silver, Bronze, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[value] AS GDP, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[gdp_per_capita], Atheletes FROM medals_w_primary INNER JOIN gdp_w_primary ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[year_country] INNER JOIN contingency_cleaned ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[contingency_cleaned].[Year_Country] INNER JOIN convertedgdpdatapercapita ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[Year_Country] ORDER BY year DESC

    This left us with the following table:

    https://i.imgur.com/tpNhiNs.png" alt="Imgur">

    Performed some basic cleaning tasks to ensure no outliers:

    Checked GDP numbers: 1992 North Korea shows as null. Updated this row with information from countryeconomy.com - $12,458,000,000

    Checked GDP per capita:

    1992 North Korea again missing. Updated this to $595, utilized same source.

    UPDATE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary] SET [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[value] = 12458000000 WHERE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[year_country] = '1992PRK'

    UPDATE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita] SET [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[gdp_per_capita] = 595 WHERE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[year_country] = '1992PRK'

    Liechtenstein showed as an outlier with GDP per capita at 180,366 in 2018. Confirmed this number is correct per the World Bank, appears Liechtenstein does not often have atheletes in the winter olympics. Performing a quick SQL search to verify this shows that they fielded 3 atheletes in 2018, with a Bronze medal being won. Initially this appears to be a good ratio for win/loss.

    Finally, need to create a column that shows the total point value for each of these rows based on the above formula (6 points for Gold, 4 points for Silver, 3 points for Bronze).

    Updated query as follows:

    SELECT [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[year], host_country, host_city, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_name], [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_code], Gold, Silver, Bronze, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[value] AS GDP, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[gdp_per_capita], Atheletes, (Gold*6) + (Silver*4) + (Bronze*3) AS 'Total_Points' FROM [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary] INNER JOIN gdp_w_primary ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[year_country] INNER JOIN contingency_cleaned ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[contingency_cleaned].[Year_Country] INNER JOIN convertedgdpdatapercapita ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[Year_Country] ORDER BY [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[year]

    Spot checked, calculating correctly.

    Saved result as winter_olympics_study.csv.

    We can now see that all relevant information is in this table:

    https://i.imgur.com/ceZvqCA.png" alt="Imgur">

    RStudio Work

    To continue our analysis, opened this CSV in RStudio.

    install.packages("tidyverse") library(tidyverse) library(ggplot2) install.packages("forecast") library(forecast) install.packages("GGally") library(GGally) install.packages("modelr") library(modelr)

    View(winter_olympic_study)

    Finding correlation between gdp_per_capita and Total_Points

    ggplot(data = winter_olympic_study) + geom_point(aes(x=gdp_per_capita,y=Total_Points,color=country_name)) + facet_wrap(~country_name)

    cor(winter_olympic_study$gdp_per_capita, winter_olympic_study$Total_Points, method = c("pearson"))

    Result is .347, showing a moderate correlation between these two figures.

    Looked next at GDP vs. Total_Points ggplot(data = winter_olympic_study) + geom_point(aes(x=GDP,y=Total_Points,color=country_name))+ facet_wrap(~country_name)

    cor(winter_olympic_study$GDP, winter_olympic_study$Total_Points, method = c("pearson")) This resulted in 0.35, statistically insignificant difference between this and GDP Per Capita

    Next looked at contingent size vs. total points ggplot(data = winter_olympic_study) + geom_point(aes(x=Atheletes,y=Total_Points,color=country_name)) +

  2. India Foundry Market Analysis - Size and Forecast 2025-2029

    • technavio.com
    Updated Feb 15, 2025
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Technavio (2025). India Foundry Market Analysis - Size and Forecast 2025-2029 [Dataset]. https://www.technavio.com/report/foundry-market-in-india-industry-analysis
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Feb 15, 2025
    Dataset provided by
    TechNavio
    Authors
    Technavio
    Time period covered
    2021 - 2025
    Area covered
    India
    Description

    Snapshot img

    India Foundry Market Size 2025-2029

    The India foundry market size is forecast to increase by USD 30.32 billion at a CAGR of 15.5% between 2024 and 2029.

    The foundry market is experiencing significant growth, driven by the increasing focus on technology upgrades, particularly the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in foundry design processes. This technological advancement enables improved efficiency, productivity, and cost savings for manufacturers. This industry serves diverse sectors, including construction, aerospace, electronics, and industrial machinery. Moreover, environmental concerns are leading to increased environmental costs, pushing the market towards the adoption of more sustainable practices. These trends are shaping the foundry industry landscape and are expected to continue influencing market growth In the coming years. Additionally, the implementation of stringent regulations to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency is further propelling the market forward. Overall, these factors present both opportunities and challenges for market participants, requiring them to stay abreast of the latest technological advancements and regulatory requirements to remain competitive.
    

    What will be the Size of the market During the Forecast Period?

    Request Free Sample

    The foundry market encompasses the production of metal castings through various processes, including ferrous and non-ferrous foundries specializing in sand casting, die casting, and other techniques. The market's size is substantial, with significant demand from OEMs and the Internet of Things (IoT) sector for electrical and mechanical components. Ferrous foundries primarily focus on producing gray iron casting, ductile iron casting, and steel casting, while non-ferrous foundries specialize in nonferrous casting. The industry's growth is driven by increasing demand for lightweight, high-strength components in various applications. Technological advancements, such as 3D printing and advanced casting designs, are also transforming the market.
    Despite this, traditional processes like sand casting continue to dominate due to their cost-effectiveness and versatility. Employment In the foundry sector includes both direct and indirect jobs, with the industry contributing significantly to the global economy. The market's future direction is promising, with continued innovation and expanding applications in various sectors.
    

    How is this market segmented and which is the largest segment?

    The market research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments.

    End-user
    
      Automotive
      Electrical and construction
      Industrial machinery
      Agriculture
      Others
    
    
    Type
    
      Gray iron casting
      Non-ferrous casting
      Ductile iron casting
      Steel casting
      Malleable casting
    
    
    Material
    
      Ferrous
      Non-ferrous
    
    
    Geography
    
      India
    

    By End-user Insights

    The automotive segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.
    

    The Indian foundry industry, a significant contributor to the auto components sector, has witnessed steady growth since 2010. Factors driving this expansion include a strong end-user market, improved consumer sentiment, and financial system liquidity. With nearly 7% share in India's GDP and close to 20 million employees, this industry is vital. A stable regulatory environment, increasing purchasing power, a vast domestic market, and infrastructure development make India an attractive investment destination. In 2023, India produced approximately 25 million tons of castings, encompassing Ferrous (Gray Iron, Ductile Iron, and Steel) and Non-Ferrous (Aluminum, Zinc, and Copper) varieties. Foundries employ automation, robotics, digitalization, green practices, and energy efficiency to meet the demands of various sectors, including Construction, Large Scale, Automotive OEMs, Aerospace, Electronics, and more.

    Get a glance at the market report of share of various segments Request Free Sample

    Market Dynamics

    Our India Foundry Market researchers analyzed the data with 2024 as the base year, along with the key drivers, trends, and challenges. A holistic analysis of drivers will help companies refine their marketing strategies to gain a competitive advantage.

    What are the key market drivers leading to the rise in adoption of India Foundry Market?

    Focus on technology upgrades is the key driver of the market.

    The Indian foundry market is experiencing significant growth due to the increasing demand for metal castings in various sectors, particularly the automotive industry. In 2023, India produced approximately 22.9 million vehicles, leading to increased demand for automotive components. To meet this demand, foundries are investing in advanced technologies and equipment. F
    
  3. Not seeing a result you expected?
    Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.

Share
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
Email
Click to copy link
Link copied
Close
Cite
Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai) / Inspirient GmbH (inspirient.com), ‘Winter Olympics Prediction - Fantasy Draft Picks’ analyzed by Analyst-2 [Dataset]. https://analyst-2.ai/analysis/kaggle-winter-olympics-prediction-fantasy-draft-picks-2684/07d15ca8/?iid=004-773&v=presentation

‘Winter Olympics Prediction - Fantasy Draft Picks’ analyzed by Analyst-2

Explore at:
Dataset authored and provided by
Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai) / Inspirient GmbH (inspirient.com)
License

Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically

Description

Analysis of ‘Winter Olympics Prediction - Fantasy Draft Picks’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/ericsbrown/winter-olympics-prediction-fantasy-draft-picks on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Olympic Draft Predictive Model

Our family runs an Olympic Draft - similar to fantasy football or baseball - for each Olympic cycle. The purpose of this case study is to identify trends in medal count / point value to create a predictive analysis of which teams should be selected in which order.

There are a few assumptions that will impact the final analysis: Point Value - Each medal is worth the following: Gold - 6 points Silver - 4 points Bronze - 3 points For analysis reviewing the last 10 Olympic cycles. Winter Olympics only.

All GDP numbers are in USD

My initial hypothesis is that larger GDP per capita and size of contingency are correlated with better points values for the Olympic draft.

All Data pulled from the following Datasets:

Winter Olympics Medal Count - https://www.kaggle.com/ramontanoeiro/winter-olympic-medals-1924-2018 Worldwide GDP History - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2020&start=1984&view=chart

GDP data was a wide format when downloaded from the World Bank. Opened file in Excel, removed irrelevant years, and saved as .csv.

Process

In RStudio utilized the following code to convert wide data to long:

install.packages("tidyverse") library(tidyverse) library(tidyr)

Converting to long data from wide

long <- newgdpdata %>% gather(year, value, -c("Country Name","Country Code"))

Completed these same steps for GDP per capita.

Primary Key Creation

Differing types of data between these two databases and there is not a good primary key to utilize. Used CONCAT to create a new key column in both combining the year and country code to create a unique identifier that matches between the datasets.

SELECT *, CONCAT(year,country_code) AS "Primary" FROM medal_count

Saved as new table "medals_w_primary"

Utilized Excel to concatenate the primary key for GDP and GDP per capita utilizing:

=CONCAT()

Saved as new csv files.

Uploaded all to SSMS.

Contingent Size

Next need to add contingent size.

No existing database had this information. Pulled data from Wikipedia.

2018 - No problem, pulled existing table. 2014 - Table was not created. Pulled information into excel, needed to convert the country NAMES into the country CODES.

Created excel document with all ISO Country Codes. Items were broken down between both formats, either 2 or 3 letters. Example:

AF/AFG

Used =RIGHT(C1,3) to extract only the country codes.

For the country participants list in 2014, copied source data from Wikipedia and pasted as plain text (not HTML).

Items then showed as: Albania (2)

Broke cells using "(" as the delimiter to separate country names and numbers, then find and replace to remove all parenthesis from this data.

We were left with: Albania 2

Used VLOOKUP to create correct country code: =VLOOKUP(A1,'Country Codes'!A:D,4,FALSE)

This worked for almost all items with a few exceptions that didn't match. Based on nature and size of items, manually checked on which items were incorrect.

Chinese Taipei 3 #N/A Great Britain 56 #N/A Virgin Islands 1 #N/A

This was relatively easy to fix by adding corresponding line items to the Country Codes sheet to account for future variability in the country code names.

Copied over to main sheet.

Repeated this process for additional years.

Once complete created sheet with all 10 cycles of data. In total there are 731 items.

Data Cleaning

Filtered by Country Code since this was an issue early on.

Found a number of N/A Country Codes:

Serbia and Montenegro FR Yugoslavia FR Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia Unified Team Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia East Germany West Germany Soviet Union Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia East Germany West Germany Soviet Union Yugoslavia

Appears to be issues with older codes, Soviet Union block countries especially. Referred to historical data and filled in these country codes manually. Codes found on iso.org.

Filled all in, one issue that was more difficult is the Unified Team of 1992 and Soviet Union. For simplicity used code for Russia - GDP data does not recognize the Soviet Union, breaks the union down to constituent countries. Using Russia is a reasonable figure for approximations and analysis to attempt to find trends.

From here created a filter and scanned through the country names to ensure there were no obvious outliers. Found the following:

Olympic Athletes from Russia[b] -- This is a one-off due to the recent PED controversy for Russia. Amended the Country Code to RUS to more accurately reflect the trends.

Korea[a] and South Korea -- both were listed in 2018. This is due to the unified Korean team that competed. This is an outlier and does not warrant standing on its own as the 2022 Olympics will not have this team (as of this writing on 01/14/2022). Removed the COR country code item.

Confirmed Primary Key was created for all entries.

Ran minimum and maximum years, no unexpected values. Ran minimum and maximum Athlete numbers, no unexpected values. Confirmed length of columns for Country Code and Primary Key.

No NULL values in any columns. Ready to import to SSMS.

SQL work

We now have 4 tables, joined together to create the master table:

SELECT [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[year], host_country, host_city, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_name], [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_code], Gold, Silver, Bronze, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[value] AS GDP, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[gdp_per_capita], Atheletes FROM medals_w_primary INNER JOIN gdp_w_primary ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[year_country] INNER JOIN contingency_cleaned ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[contingency_cleaned].[Year_Country] INNER JOIN convertedgdpdatapercapita ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[Year_Country] ORDER BY year DESC

This left us with the following table:

https://i.imgur.com/tpNhiNs.png" alt="Imgur">

Performed some basic cleaning tasks to ensure no outliers:

Checked GDP numbers: 1992 North Korea shows as null. Updated this row with information from countryeconomy.com - $12,458,000,000

Checked GDP per capita:

1992 North Korea again missing. Updated this to $595, utilized same source.

UPDATE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary] SET [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[value] = 12458000000 WHERE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[year_country] = '1992PRK'

UPDATE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita] SET [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[gdp_per_capita] = 595 WHERE [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[year_country] = '1992PRK'

Liechtenstein showed as an outlier with GDP per capita at 180,366 in 2018. Confirmed this number is correct per the World Bank, appears Liechtenstein does not often have atheletes in the winter olympics. Performing a quick SQL search to verify this shows that they fielded 3 atheletes in 2018, with a Bronze medal being won. Initially this appears to be a good ratio for win/loss.

Finally, need to create a column that shows the total point value for each of these rows based on the above formula (6 points for Gold, 4 points for Silver, 3 points for Bronze).

Updated query as follows:

SELECT [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[year], host_country, host_city, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_name], [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[country_code], Gold, Silver, Bronze, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[value] AS GDP, [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[gdp_per_capita], Atheletes, (Gold*6) + (Silver*4) + (Bronze*3) AS 'Total_Points' FROM [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary] INNER JOIN gdp_w_primary ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[gdp_w_primary].[year_country] INNER JOIN contingency_cleaned ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[contingency_cleaned].[Year_Country] INNER JOIN convertedgdpdatapercapita ON [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[medals_w_primary].[primary] = [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[Year_Country] ORDER BY [OlympicDraft].[dbo].[convertedgdpdatapercapita].[year]

Spot checked, calculating correctly.

Saved result as winter_olympics_study.csv.

We can now see that all relevant information is in this table:

https://i.imgur.com/ceZvqCA.png" alt="Imgur">

RStudio Work

To continue our analysis, opened this CSV in RStudio.

install.packages("tidyverse") library(tidyverse) library(ggplot2) install.packages("forecast") library(forecast) install.packages("GGally") library(GGally) install.packages("modelr") library(modelr)

View(winter_olympic_study)

Finding correlation between gdp_per_capita and Total_Points

ggplot(data = winter_olympic_study) + geom_point(aes(x=gdp_per_capita,y=Total_Points,color=country_name)) + facet_wrap(~country_name)

cor(winter_olympic_study$gdp_per_capita, winter_olympic_study$Total_Points, method = c("pearson"))

Result is .347, showing a moderate correlation between these two figures.

Looked next at GDP vs. Total_Points ggplot(data = winter_olympic_study) + geom_point(aes(x=GDP,y=Total_Points,color=country_name))+ facet_wrap(~country_name)

cor(winter_olympic_study$GDP, winter_olympic_study$Total_Points, method = c("pearson")) This resulted in 0.35, statistically insignificant difference between this and GDP Per Capita

Next looked at contingent size vs. total points ggplot(data = winter_olympic_study) + geom_point(aes(x=Atheletes,y=Total_Points,color=country_name)) +

Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu