Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Sheet 1 (Raw-Data): The raw data of the study is provided, presenting the tagging results for the used measures described in the paper. For each subject, it includes multiple columns: A. a sequential student ID B an ID that defines a random group label and the notation C. the used notation: user Story or use Cases D. the case they were assigned to: IFA, Sim, or Hos E. the subject's exam grade (total points out of 100). Empty cells mean that the subject did not take the first exam F. a categorical representation of the grade L/M/H, where H is greater or equal to 80, M is between 65 included and 80 excluded, L otherwise G. the total number of classes in the student's conceptual model H. the total number of relationships in the student's conceptual model I. the total number of classes in the expert's conceptual model J. the total number of relationships in the expert's conceptual model K-O. the total number of encountered situations of alignment, wrong representation, system-oriented, omitted, missing (see tagging scheme below) P. the researchers' judgement on how well the derivation process explanation was explained by the student: well explained (a systematic mapping that can be easily reproduced), partially explained (vague indication of the mapping ), or not present.
Tagging scheme:
Aligned (AL) - A concept is represented as a class in both models, either
with the same name or using synonyms or clearly linkable names;
Wrongly represented (WR) - A class in the domain expert model is
incorrectly represented in the student model, either (i) via an attribute,
method, or relationship rather than class, or
(ii) using a generic term (e.g., user'' instead of
urban
planner'');
System-oriented (SO) - A class in CM-Stud that denotes a technical
implementation aspect, e.g., access control. Classes that represent legacy
system or the system under design (portal, simulator) are legitimate;
Omitted (OM) - A class in CM-Expert that does not appear in any way in
CM-Stud;
Missing (MI) - A class in CM-Stud that does not appear in any way in
CM-Expert.
All the calculations and information provided in the following sheets
originate from that raw data.
Sheet 2 (Descriptive-Stats): Shows a summary of statistics from the data collection,
including the number of subjects per case, per notation, per process derivation rigor category, and per exam grade category.
Sheet 3 (Size-Ratio):
The number of classes within the student model divided by the number of classes within the expert model is calculated (describing the size ratio). We provide box plots to allow a visual comparison of the shape of the distribution, its central value, and its variability for each group (by case, notation, process, and exam grade) . The primary focus in this study is on the number of classes. However, we also provided the size ratio for the number of relationships between student and expert model.
Sheet 4 (Overall):
Provides an overview of all subjects regarding the encountered situations, completeness, and correctness, respectively. Correctness is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that is fully aligned with the classes in the corresponding expert model. It is calculated by dividing the number of aligned concepts (AL) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), omitted concepts (OM), system-oriented concepts (SO), and wrong representations (WR). Completeness on the other hand, is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that are correctly or incorrectly represented over the number of classes in the expert model. Completeness is calculated by dividing the sum of aligned concepts (AL) and wrong representations (WR) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), wrong representations (WR) and omitted concepts (OM). The overview is complemented with general diverging stacked bar charts that illustrate correctness and completeness.
For sheet 4 as well as for the following four sheets, diverging stacked bar
charts are provided to visualize the effect of each of the independent and mediated variables. The charts are based on the relative numbers of encountered situations for each student. In addition, a "Buffer" is calculated witch solely serves the purpose of constructing the diverging stacked bar charts in Excel. Finally, at the bottom of each sheet, the significance (T-test) and effect size (Hedges' g) for both completeness and correctness are provided. Hedges' g was calculated with an online tool: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. The independent and moderating variables can be found as follows:
Sheet 5 (By-Notation):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by notation - UC, US.
Sheet 6 (By-Case):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by case - SIM, HOS, IFA.
Sheet 7 (By-Process):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by how well the derivation process is explained - well explained, partially explained, not present.
Sheet 8 (By-Grade):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by the exam grades, converted to categorical values High, Low , and Medium.
The purpose of this project is to improve the accuracy of statistical software by providing reference datasets with certified computational results that enable the objective evaluation of statistical software. Currently datasets and certified values are provided for assessing the accuracy of software for univariate statistics, linear regression, nonlinear regression, and analysis of variance. The collection includes both generated and 'real-world' data of varying levels of difficulty. Generated datasets are designed to challenge specific computations. These include the classic Wampler datasets for testing linear regression algorithms and the Simon & Lesage datasets for testing analysis of variance algorithms. Real-world data include challenging datasets such as the Longley data for linear regression, and more benign datasets such as the Daniel & Wood data for nonlinear regression. Certified values are 'best-available' solutions. The certification procedure is described in the web pages for each statistical method. Datasets are ordered by level of difficulty (lower, average, and higher). Strictly speaking the level of difficulty of a dataset depends on the algorithm. These levels are merely provided as rough guidance for the user. Producing correct results on all datasets of higher difficulty does not imply that your software will pass all datasets of average or even lower difficulty. Similarly, producing correct results for all datasets in this collection does not imply that your software will do the same for your particular dataset. It will, however, provide some degree of assurance, in the sense that your package provides correct results for datasets known to yield incorrect results for some software. The Statistical Reference Datasets is also supported by the Standard Reference Data Program.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset is about books. It has 2 rows and is filtered where the book is Data analysis with SPSS : a first course in applied statistics. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset contains tabular files with information about the usage preferences of speakers of Maltese English with regard to 63 pairs of lexical expressions. These pairs (e.g. truck-lorry or realization-realisation) are known to differ in usage between BrE and AmE (cf. Algeo 2006). The data were elicited with a questionnaire that asks informants to indicate whether they always use one of the two variants, prefer one over the other, have no preference, or do not use either expression (see Krug and Sell 2013 for methodological details). Usage preferences were therefore measured on a symmetric 5-point ordinal scale. Data were collected between 2008 to 2018, as part of a larger research project on lexical and grammatical variation in settings where English is spoken as a native, second, or foreign language. The current dataset, which we use for our methodological study on ordinal data modeling strategies, consists of a subset of 500 speakers that is roughly balanced on year of birth. Abstract: Related publication In empirical work, ordinal variables are typically analyzed using means based on numeric scores assigned to categories. While this strategy has met with justified criticism in the methodological literature, it also generates simple and informative data summaries, a standard often not met by statistically more adequate procedures. Motivated by a survey of how ordered variables are dealt with in language research, we draw attention to an un(der)used latent-variable approach to ordinal data modeling, which constitutes an alternative perspective on the most widely used form of ordered regression, the cumulative model. Since the latent-variable approach does not feature in any of the studies in our survey, we believe it is worthwhile to promote its benefits. To this end, we draw on questionnaire-based preference ratings by speakers of Maltese English, who indicated on a 5-point scale which of two synonymous expressions (e.g. package-parcel) they (tend to) use. We demonstrate that a latent-variable formulation of the cumulative model affords nuanced and interpretable data summaries that can be visualized effectively, while at the same time avoiding limitations inherent in mean response models (e.g. distortions induced by floor and ceiling effects). The online supplementary materials include a tutorial for its implementation in R.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset is provided to supplement the response by Wolf (2025) to the letter to the editor by Derry et al. (2025) concerning Kantola et al. (2023). The dataset includes several elemental analyses of Blue Ridge Metabasalt that have not previously been published. This is a widely examined feedstock for enhanced rock weathering studies, and particularly the trial reported in Kantola et al. (2023). The dataset uses this feedstock variability to compare with a new analysis of variance for data previously published in Kantola et al. (2023). Finally, the dataset also includes previously unpublished QA/QC data for elemental analyses of the soils reported in Kantola et al. (2023).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the Gate household income by age. The dataset can be utilized to understand the age-based income distribution of Gate income.
The dataset will have the following datasets when applicable
Please note: The 2020 1-Year ACS estimates data was not reported by the Census Bureau due to the impact on survey collection and analysis caused by COVID-19. Consequently, median household income data for 2020 is unavailable for large cities (population 65,000 and above).
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.
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/.
Explore our comprehensive data analysis and visual representations for a deeper understanding of Gate income distribution by age. You can refer the same here
Spatial analysis and statistical summaries of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) provide land managers and decision makers with a general assessment of management intent for biodiversity protection, natural resource management, and recreation access across the nation. The PAD-US 3.0 Combined Fee, Designation, Easement feature class (with Military Lands and Tribal Areas from the Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries feature class) was modified to remove overlaps, avoiding overestimation in protected area statistics and to support user needs. A Python scripted process ("PADUS3_0_CreateVectorAnalysisFileScript.zip") associated with this data release prioritized overlapping designations (e.g. Wilderness within a National Forest) based upon their relative biodiversity conservation status (e.g. GAP Status Code 1 over 2), public access values (in the order of Closed, Restricted, Open, Unknown), and geodatabase load order (records are deliberately organized in the PAD-US full inventory with fee owned lands loaded before overlapping management designations, and easements). The Vector Analysis File ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFile_ClipCensus.zip") associated item of PAD-US 3.0 Spatial Analysis and Statistics ( https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KLBB5D ) was clipped to the Census state boundary file to define the extent and serve as a common denominator for statistical summaries. Boundaries of interest to stakeholders (State, Department of the Interior Region, Congressional District, County, EcoRegions I-IV, Urban Areas, Landscape Conservation Cooperative) were incorporated into separate geodatabase feature classes to support various data summaries ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFileOtherExtents_Clip_Census.zip") and Comma-separated Value (CSV) tables ("PADUS3_0SummaryStatistics_TabularData_CSV.zip") summarizing "PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFileOtherExtents_Clip_Census.zip" are provided as an alternative format and enable users to explore and download summary statistics of interest (Comma-separated Table [CSV], Microsoft Excel Workbook [.XLSX], Portable Document Format [.PDF] Report) from the PAD-US Lands and Inland Water Statistics Dashboard ( https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/pad-us-statistics ). In addition, a "flattened" version of the PAD-US 3.0 combined file without other extent boundaries ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFile_ClipCensus.zip") allow for other applications that require a representation of overall protection status without overlapping designation boundaries. The "PADUS3_0VectorAnalysis_State_Clip_CENSUS2020" feature class ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFileOtherExtents_Clip_Census.gdb") is the source of the PAD-US 3.0 raster files (associated item of PAD-US 3.0 Spatial Analysis and Statistics, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KLBB5D ). Note, the PAD-US inventory is now considered functionally complete with the vast majority of land protection types represented in some manner, while work continues to maintain updates and improve data quality (see inventory completeness estimates at: http://www.protectedlands.net/data-stewards/ ). In addition, changes in protected area status between versions of the PAD-US may be attributed to improving the completeness and accuracy of the spatial data more than actual management actions or new acquisitions. USGS provides no legal warranty for the use of this data. While PAD-US is the official aggregation of protected areas ( https://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html ), agencies are the best source of their lands data.
https://dataverse.no/api/datasets/:persistentId/versions/2.0/customlicense?persistentId=doi:10.18710/WSU7I6https://dataverse.no/api/datasets/:persistentId/versions/2.0/customlicense?persistentId=doi:10.18710/WSU7I6
The dataset comprises three dynamic scenes characterized by both simple and complex lighting conditions. The quantity of cameras ranges from 4 to 512, including 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and 512. The point clouds are randomly generated.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
dataset and Octave/MatLab codes/scripts for data analysis Background: Methods for p-value correction are criticized for either increasing Type II error or improperly reducing Type I error. This problem is worse when dealing with thousands or even hundreds of paired comparisons between waves or images which are performed point-to-point. This text considers patterns in probability vectors resulting from multiple point-to-point comparisons between two event-related potentials (ERP) waves (mass univariate analysis) to correct p-values, where clusters of signiticant p-values may indicate true H0 rejection. New method: We used ERP data from normal subjects and other ones with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) under a cued forced two-choice test to study attention. The decimal logarithm of the p-vector (p') was convolved with a Gaussian window whose length was set as the shortest lag above which autocorrelation of each ERP wave may be assumed to have vanished. To verify the reliability of the present correction method, we realized Monte-Carlo simulations (MC) to (1) evaluate confidence intervals of rejected and non-rejected areas of our data, (2) to evaluate differences between corrected and uncorrected p-vectors or simulated ones in terms of distribution of significant p-values, and (3) to empirically verify rate of type-I error (comparing 10,000 pairs of mixed samples whit control and ADHD subjects). Results: the present method reduced the range of p'-values that did not show covariance with neighbors (type I and also type-II errors). The differences between simulation or raw p-vector and corrected p-vectors were, respectively, minimal and maximal for window length set by autocorrelation in p-vector convolution. Comparison with existing methods: Our method was less conservative while FDR methods rejected basically all significant p-values for Pz and O2 channels. The MC simulations, gold-standard method for error correction, presented 2.78±4.83% of difference (all 20 channels) from p-vector after correction, while difference between raw and corrected p-vector was 5,96±5.00% (p = 0.0003). Conclusion: As a cluster-based correction, the present new method seems to be biological and statistically suitable to correct p-values in mass univariate analysis of ERP waves, which adopts adaptive parameters to set correction.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Dataset used to generate models.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Overview
Data points present in this dataset were obtained following the subsequent steps: To assess the secretion efficiency of the constructs, 96 colonies from the selection plates were evaluated using the workflow presented in Figure Workflow. We picked transformed colonies and cultured in 400 μL TAP medium for 7 days in Deep-well plates (Corning Axygen®, No.: PDW500CS, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA), covered with Breathe-Easy® (Sigma-Aldrich®). Cultivation was performed on a rotary shaker, set to 150 rpm, under constant illumination (50 μmol photons/m2s). Then 100 μL sample were transferred clear bottom 96-well plate (Corning Costar, Tewksbury, MA, USA) and fluorescence was measured using an Infinite® M200 PRO plate reader (Tecan, Männedorf, Switzerland). Fluorescence was measured at excitation 575/9 nm and emission 608/20 nm. Supernatant samples were obtained by spinning Deep-well plates at 3000 × g for 10 min and transferring 100 μL from each well to the clear bottom 96-well plate (Corning Costar, Tewksbury, MA, USA), followed by fluorescence measurement. To compare the constructs, R Statistic version 3.3.3 was used to perform one-way ANOVA (with Tukey's test), and to test statistical hypotheses, the significance level was set at 0.05. Graphs were generated in RStudio v1.0.136. The codes are deposit herein.
Info
ANOVA_Turkey_Sub.R -> code for ANOVA analysis in R statistic 3.3.3
barplot_R.R -> code to generate bar plot in R statistic 3.3.3
boxplotv2.R -> code to generate boxplot in R statistic 3.3.3
pRFU_+_bk.csv -> relative supernatant mCherry fluorescence dataset of positive colonies, blanked with parental wild-type cc1690 cell of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
sup_+_bl.csv -> supernatant mCherry fluorescence dataset of positive colonies, blanked with parental wild-type cc1690 cell of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
sup_raw.csv -> supernatant mCherry fluorescence dataset of 96 colonies for each construct.
who_+_bl2.csv -> whole culture mCherry fluorescence dataset of positive colonies, blanked with parental wild-type cc1690 cell of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
who_raw.csv -> whole culture mCherry fluorescence dataset of 96 colonies for each construct.
who_+_Chlo.csv -> whole culture chlorophyll fluorescence dataset of 96 colonies for each construct.
Anova_Output_Summary_Guide.pdf -> Explain the ANOVA files content
ANOVA_pRFU_+_bk.doc -> ANOVA of relative supernatant mCherry fluorescence dataset of positive colonies, blanked with parental wild-type cc1690 cell of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
ANOVA_sup_+_bk.doc -> ANOVA of supernatant mCherry fluorescence dataset of positive colonies, blanked with parental wild-type cc1690 cell of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
ANOVA_who_+_bk.doc -> ANOVA of whole culture mCherry fluorescence dataset of positive colonies, blanked with parental wild-type cc1690 cell of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
ANOVA_Chlo.doc -> ANOVA of whole culture chlorophyll fluorescence of all constructs, plus average and standard deviation values.
Consider citing our work.
Molino JVD, de Carvalho JCM, Mayfield SP (2018) Comparison of secretory signal peptides for heterologous protein expression in microalgae: Expanding the secretion portfolio for Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0192433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0192433
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
The dataset was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme from multiple source datasets. The source datasets are identified in the Lineage field in this metadata statement. The processes undertaken to produce this derived dataset are described in the History field in this metadata statement.
Various climate variables summary for all 15 subregions based on Bureau of Meteorology Australian Water Availability Project (BAWAP) climate grids. Including
Time series mean annual BAWAP rainfall from 1900 - 2012.
Long term average BAWAP rainfall and Penman Potentail Evapotranspiration (PET) from Jan 1981 - Dec 2012 for each month
Values calculated over the years 1981 - 2012 (inclusive), for 17 time periods (i.e., annual, 4 seasons and 12 months) for the following 8 meteorological variables: (i) BAWAP_P (precipitation); (ii) Penman ETp; (iii) Tavg (average temperature); (iv) Tmax (maximum temperature); (v) Tmin (minimum temperature); (vi) VPD (Vapour Pressure Deficit); (vii) Rn (net radiation); and (viii) Wind speed. For each of the 17 time periods for each of the 8 meteorological variables have calculated the: (a) average; (b) maximum; (c) minimum; (d) average plus standard deviation (stddev); (e) average minus stddev; (f) stddev; and (g) trend.
Correlation coefficients (-1 to 1) between rainfall and 4 remote rainfall drivers between 1957-2006 for the four seasons. The data and methodology are described in Risbey et al. (2009).
As described in the Risbey et al. (2009) paper, the rainfall was from 0.05 degree gridded data described in Jeffrey et al. (2001 - known as the SILO datasets); sea surface temperature was from the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST) on a 1 degree grid. BLK=Blocking; DMI=Dipole Mode Index; SAM=Southern Annular Mode; SOI=Southern Oscillation Index; DJF=December, January, February; MAM=March, April, May; JJA=June, July, August; SON=September, October, November. The analysis is a summary of Fig. 15 of Risbey et al. (2009).
There are 4 csv files here:
BAWAP_P_annual_BA_SYB_GLO.csv
Desc: Time series mean annual BAWAP rainfall from 1900 - 2012.
Source data: annual BILO rainfall
P_PET_monthly_BA_SYB_GLO.csv
long term average BAWAP rainfall and Penman PET from 198101 - 201212 for each month
Climatology_Trend_BA_SYB_GLO.csv
Values calculated over the years 1981 - 2012 (inclusive), for 17 time periods (i.e., annual, 4 seasons and 12 months) for the following 8 meteorological variables: (i) BAWAP_P; (ii) Penman ETp; (iii) Tavg; (iv) Tmax; (v) Tmin; (vi) VPD; (vii) Rn; and (viii) Wind speed. For each of the 17 time periods for each of the 8 meteorological variables have calculated the: (a) average; (b) maximum; (c) minimum; (d) average plus standard deviation (stddev); (e) average minus stddev; (f) stddev; and (g) trend
Risbey_Remote_Rainfall_Drivers_Corr_Coeffs_BA_NSB_GLO.csv
Correlation coefficients (-1 to 1) between rainfall and 4 remote rainfall drivers between 1957-2006 for the four seasons. The data and methodology are described in Risbey et al. (2009). As described in the Risbey et al. (2009) paper, the rainfall was from 0.05 degree gridded data described in Jeffrey et al. (2001 - known as the SILO datasets); sea surface temperature was from the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST) on a 1 degree grid. BLK=Blocking; DMI=Dipole Mode Index; SAM=Southern Annular Mode; SOI=Southern Oscillation Index; DJF=December, January, February; MAM=March, April, May; JJA=June, July, August; SON=September, October, November. The analysis is a summary of Fig. 15 of Risbey et al. (2009).
Dataset was created from various BAWAP source data, including Monthly BAWAP rainfall, Tmax, Tmin, VPD, etc, and other source data including monthly Penman PET, Correlation coefficient data. Data were extracted from national datasets for the GLO subregion.
BAWAP_P_annual_BA_SYB_GLO.csv
Desc: Time series mean annual BAWAP rainfall from 1900 - 2012.
Source data: annual BILO rainfall
P_PET_monthly_BA_SYB_GLO.csv
long term average BAWAP rainfall and Penman PET from 198101 - 201212 for each month
Climatology_Trend_BA_SYB_GLO.csv
Values calculated over the years 1981 - 2012 (inclusive), for 17 time periods (i.e., annual, 4 seasons and 12 months) for the following 8 meteorological variables: (i) BAWAP_P; (ii) Penman ETp; (iii) Tavg; (iv) Tmax; (v) Tmin; (vi) VPD; (vii) Rn; and (viii) Wind speed. For each of the 17 time periods for each of the 8 meteorological variables have calculated the: (a) average; (b) maximum; (c) minimum; (d) average plus standard deviation (stddev); (e) average minus stddev; (f) stddev; and (g) trend
Risbey_Remote_Rainfall_Drivers_Corr_Coeffs_BA_NSB_GLO.csv
Correlation coefficients (-1 to 1) between rainfall and 4 remote rainfall drivers between 1957-2006 for the four seasons. The data and methodology are described in Risbey et al. (2009). As described in the Risbey et al. (2009) paper, the rainfall was from 0.05 degree gridded data described in Jeffrey et al. (2001 - known as the SILO datasets); sea surface temperature was from the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST) on a 1 degree grid. BLK=Blocking; DMI=Dipole Mode Index; SAM=Southern Annular Mode; SOI=Southern Oscillation Index; DJF=December, January, February; MAM=March, April, May; JJA=June, July, August; SON=September, October, November. The analysis is a summary of Fig. 15 of Risbey et al. (2009).
Bioregional Assessment Programme (2014) GLO climate data stats summary. Bioregional Assessment Derived Dataset. Viewed 18 July 2018, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/afed85e0-7819-493d-a847-ec00a318e657.
Derived From Natural Resource Management (NRM) Regions 2010
Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v03
Derived From BILO Gridded Climate Data: Daily Climate Data for each year from 1900 to 2012
Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v01
Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v02
Derived From GEODATA TOPO 250K Series 3
Derived From NSW Catchment Management Authority Boundaries 20130917
Derived From Geological Provinces - Full Extent
Derived From GEODATA TOPO 250K Series 3, File Geodatabase format (.gdb)
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the population of Weston by gender, including both male and female populations. This dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Weston across both sexes and to determine which sex constitutes the majority.
Key observations
There is a slight majority of female population, with 51.46% of total population being female. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.
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
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.
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/.
This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Weston Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Dataset accompanying the Synthetic Daisies post "Are the Worst Performers the Best Predictors?" and the technical paper (on viXra) "From Worst to Most Variable? Only the worst performers may be the most informative".
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
Contains csv data of cell features used for the analysis in the publication: "A novel MYH9 variant leads to atypical Epstein-Fechtner syndrome by altering non-muscle myosin IIA mediated contractile processes". These csv files contain call relevant cell features per patient and cell type. Files should be titled: For controls: + + .csv For patients: + + + + .csv Metadata containing sex and age is also available in files: “controls_metadata.csv” and “patients_metadata.csv” Summary statistic is also included in this public dataset. For controls: “controls_summary_statistics.csv” For patients: “patients_summary_statistics.csv” Summary statistic files are created using publicly available code: code: https://github.com/SaraKaliman/dc-data-novel-MYH9-variant/blob/main/Step1_summary_statistics.ipynb Group analysis included t-test, U-test and effect size for t-test and can be found in the file: “summary_statistical_group_analysis.csv” file. Main figure in the article and statistical analysis are done using publicly available code: https://github.com/SaraKaliman/dc-data-novel-MYH9-variant/blob/main/Step2_group_comparison.ipynb Single scalar rtdc files is included only due to limitation of DCOR datasets to rtdc files.
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
The csv file contains aggregated data on the results of the experiment (user_id), treatment type (group) and key user metrics(views and clicks) The task is to analyze the results of the experiment and write your recommendations.
International Data & Economic Analysis (IDEA) is USAID's comprehensive source of economic and social data and analysis. IDEA brings together over 12,000 data series from over 125 sources into one location for easy access by USAID and its partners through the USAID public website. The data are broken down by countries, years and the following sectors: Economy, Country Ratings and Rankings, Trade, Development Assistance, Education, Health, Population, and Natural Resources. IDEA regularly updates the database as new data become available. Examples of IDEA sources include the Demographic and Health Surveys, STATcompiler; UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Food Price Index; IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics; Millennium Challenge Corporation; and World Bank, World Development Indicators. The database can be queried by navigating to the site displayed in the Home Page field below.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Fictitious data to look at the overall health of Starfleet volunteers on four different drugs. Since each volunteer is measured on each of the four drugs, we propose to use this datasets to look at repeater measures ANOVA to determine if the mean health scores differs between drugs.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset records the assessment of the effectiveness of learning objects in statistical education within nursing degree programs. It includes observations from 54 students with the following variables:
The dataset includes a Quarto file, which performs various statistical analyses in R and returns a report in MS Word format. This data is crucial for future research in statistical teaching methodologies and is of particular interest to those in the field of nursing education. The tabular format is conducive to analysis with statistical software such as R.
Job satisfaction and attitude of DP users to DP facilities.
Topics: The current data set, put together to accompany the author´s below-mentioned book, contains a sample of variables and a sample of cases from ZA Study No. 0903.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Sheet 1 (Raw-Data): The raw data of the study is provided, presenting the tagging results for the used measures described in the paper. For each subject, it includes multiple columns: A. a sequential student ID B an ID that defines a random group label and the notation C. the used notation: user Story or use Cases D. the case they were assigned to: IFA, Sim, or Hos E. the subject's exam grade (total points out of 100). Empty cells mean that the subject did not take the first exam F. a categorical representation of the grade L/M/H, where H is greater or equal to 80, M is between 65 included and 80 excluded, L otherwise G. the total number of classes in the student's conceptual model H. the total number of relationships in the student's conceptual model I. the total number of classes in the expert's conceptual model J. the total number of relationships in the expert's conceptual model K-O. the total number of encountered situations of alignment, wrong representation, system-oriented, omitted, missing (see tagging scheme below) P. the researchers' judgement on how well the derivation process explanation was explained by the student: well explained (a systematic mapping that can be easily reproduced), partially explained (vague indication of the mapping ), or not present.
Tagging scheme:
Aligned (AL) - A concept is represented as a class in both models, either
with the same name or using synonyms or clearly linkable names;
Wrongly represented (WR) - A class in the domain expert model is
incorrectly represented in the student model, either (i) via an attribute,
method, or relationship rather than class, or
(ii) using a generic term (e.g., user'' instead of
urban
planner'');
System-oriented (SO) - A class in CM-Stud that denotes a technical
implementation aspect, e.g., access control. Classes that represent legacy
system or the system under design (portal, simulator) are legitimate;
Omitted (OM) - A class in CM-Expert that does not appear in any way in
CM-Stud;
Missing (MI) - A class in CM-Stud that does not appear in any way in
CM-Expert.
All the calculations and information provided in the following sheets
originate from that raw data.
Sheet 2 (Descriptive-Stats): Shows a summary of statistics from the data collection,
including the number of subjects per case, per notation, per process derivation rigor category, and per exam grade category.
Sheet 3 (Size-Ratio):
The number of classes within the student model divided by the number of classes within the expert model is calculated (describing the size ratio). We provide box plots to allow a visual comparison of the shape of the distribution, its central value, and its variability for each group (by case, notation, process, and exam grade) . The primary focus in this study is on the number of classes. However, we also provided the size ratio for the number of relationships between student and expert model.
Sheet 4 (Overall):
Provides an overview of all subjects regarding the encountered situations, completeness, and correctness, respectively. Correctness is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that is fully aligned with the classes in the corresponding expert model. It is calculated by dividing the number of aligned concepts (AL) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), omitted concepts (OM), system-oriented concepts (SO), and wrong representations (WR). Completeness on the other hand, is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that are correctly or incorrectly represented over the number of classes in the expert model. Completeness is calculated by dividing the sum of aligned concepts (AL) and wrong representations (WR) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), wrong representations (WR) and omitted concepts (OM). The overview is complemented with general diverging stacked bar charts that illustrate correctness and completeness.
For sheet 4 as well as for the following four sheets, diverging stacked bar
charts are provided to visualize the effect of each of the independent and mediated variables. The charts are based on the relative numbers of encountered situations for each student. In addition, a "Buffer" is calculated witch solely serves the purpose of constructing the diverging stacked bar charts in Excel. Finally, at the bottom of each sheet, the significance (T-test) and effect size (Hedges' g) for both completeness and correctness are provided. Hedges' g was calculated with an online tool: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. The independent and moderating variables can be found as follows:
Sheet 5 (By-Notation):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by notation - UC, US.
Sheet 6 (By-Case):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by case - SIM, HOS, IFA.
Sheet 7 (By-Process):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by how well the derivation process is explained - well explained, partially explained, not present.
Sheet 8 (By-Grade):
Model correctness and model completeness is compared by the exam grades, converted to categorical values High, Low , and Medium.