Abstract

The JPFHS is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys Program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health. The primary objective of the Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) is to provide reliable estimates of demographic parameters, such as fertility, mortality, family planning, fertility preferences, as well as maternal and child health and nutrition that can be used by program managers and policy makers to evaluate and improve existing programs. In addition, the JPFHS data will be useful to researchers and scholars interested in analyzing demographic trends in Jordan, as well as those conducting comparative, regional or crossnational studies.

The content of the 2002 JPFHS was significantly expanded from the 1997 survey to include additional questions on women’s status, reproductive health, and family planning. In addition, all women age 15-49 and children less than five years of age were tested for anemia.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: 1) nonsampling errors and 2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the result of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2002 JPFHS to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2002 JPFHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2002 JPFHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 2002 JPFHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (ISSAS). This module used the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The 2002 JPFHS used two questionnaires – namely, the Household Questionnaire and the Individual Questionnaire. Both questionnaires were developed in English and translated into Arabic. The Household Questionnaire was used to list all usual members of the sampled households and to obtain information on each member’s age, sex, educational attainment, relationship to the head of household, and marital status. In addition, questions were included on the socioeconomic characteristics of the household, such as source of water, sanitation facilities, and the availability of durable goods. The Household Questionnaire was also used to identify women who are eligible for the individual interview: ever-married women age 15-49. In addition, all women age 15-49 and children under five years living in the household were measured to determine nutritional status and tested for anemia.

The household and women’s questionnaires were based on the DHS Model “A” Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with high contraceptive prevalence. Additions and modifications to the model questionnaire were made in order to provide detailed information specific to Jordan, using experience gained from the 1990 and 1997 Jordan Population and Family Health Surveys. For each evermarried woman age 15 to 49, information on the following topics was collected:

1. Respondent’s background
2. Birth history
3. Knowledge and practice of family planning
4. Maternal care, breastfeeding, immunization, and health of children under five years of age
5. Marriage
6. Fertility preferences
7. Husband’s background and respondent’s employment
8. Knowledge of AIDS and STIs

In addition, information on births and pregnancies, contraceptive use and discontinuation, and marriage during the five years prior to the survey was collected using a monthly calendar.

Cleaning operations

Fieldwork and data processing activities overlapped. After a week of data collection, and after field editing of questionnaires for completeness and consistency, the questionnaires for each cluster were packaged together and sent to the central office in Amman where they were registered and stored. Special teams were formed to carry out office editing and coding of the open-ended questions.

Data entry and verification started after one week of office data processing. The process of data entry, including one hundred percent re-entry, editing and cleaning, was done by using PCs and the CSPro (Census and Survey Processing) computer package, developed specially for such surveys. The CSPro program allows data to be edited while being entered. Data processing operations were completed by the end of October 2002. A data processing specialist from ORC Macro made a trip to Jordan in October and November 2002 to follow up data editing and cleaning and to work on the tabulation of results for the survey preliminary report. The tabulations for the present final report were completed in December 2002.

Response rate

A total of 7,968 households were selected for the survey from the sampling frame; among those selected households, 7,907 households were found. Of those households, 7,825 (99 percent) were successfully interviewed. In those households, 6,151 eligible women were identified, and complete interviews were obtained with 6,006 of them (98 percent of all eligible women). The overall response rate was 97 percent.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: 1) nonsampling errors and 2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the result of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2002 JPFHS to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2002 JPFHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2002 JPFHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 2002 JPFHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (ISSAS). This module used the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: See detailed

Multiple sampling campaigns were conducted near Boulder, Colorado, to quantify constituent concentrations and loads in Boulder Creek and its tributary, South Boulder Creek. Diel sampling was initiated at approximately 1100 hours on September 17, 2019, and continued until approximately 2300 hours on September 18, 2019. During this time period, samples were collected at two locations on Boulder Creek approximately every 3.5 hours to quantify the diel variability of constituent concentrations at low flow. Synoptic sampling campaigns on South Boulder Creek and Boulder Creek were conducted October 15-18, 2019, to develop spatial profiles of concentration, streamflow, and load. Numerous main stem and inflow locations were sampled during each synoptic campaign using the simple grab technique (17 main stem and 2 inflow locations on South Boulder Creek; 34 main stem and 17 inflow locations on Boulder Creek). Streamflow at each main stem location was measured using acoustic doppler velocimetry. Bulk samples from all sampling campaigns were processed within one hour of sample collection. Processing steps included measurement of pH and specific conductance, and filtration using 0.45-micron filters. Laboratory analyses were subsequently conducted to determine dissolved and total recoverable constituent concentrations. Filtered samples were analyzed for a suite of dissolved anions using ion chromatography. Filtered, acidified samples and unfiltered acidified samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy to determine dissolved and total recoverable cation concentrations, respectively. This data release includes three data tables, three photographs, and a kmz file showing the sampling locations. Additional information on the data table contents, including the presentation of data below the analytical detection limits, is provided in a Data Dictionary.

VAPOR is the Visualization and Analysis Platform for Ocean, Atmosphere, and Solar Researchers. VAPOR provides an interactive 3D visualization environment that can also produce animations and still frame images. VAPOR runs on most UNIX and Windows systems equipped with modern 3D graphics cards. VAPOR is a product of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Computational and Information Systems Lab. Support for VAPOR is provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation and by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information This dataset contains sample files of model outputs from numerical simulations that VAPOR is capable of directly reading. They are not related to each other aside from being sample data for VAPOR.
To unpack the tar.gz files on Linux/OSX, issue the command tar -xzvf [myFile].tar.gz on the file you've downloaded. On Windows, a program like 7-zip can perform that operation. Once unpacked, the files can be directly imported into VAPOR, or converted to VDC. For more information see the "Getting Data Into VAPOR" Related Link below.

This view presents data selected from the geochemical mapping of North Greenland that are relevant for an evaluation of the potential for zinc mineralisation: CaO, K2O, Ba, Cu, Sr, Zn. The data represent the most reliable analytical values from 2469 stream sediment and 204 soil samples collected and analysed over a period from 1978 to 1999 plus a large number of reanalyses in 2011. The compiled data have been quality controlled and calibrated to eliminate bias between methods and time of analysis as described in Thrane et al., 2011. In the present dataset, all values below lower detection limit are indicated by the digit 0. Sampling The regional geochemical surveys undertaken in North Greenland follows the procedure for stream sediment sampling given in Steenfelt, 1999. Thrane et al., 2011 give more information on sampling campaigns in the area. The sample consists of 500 g sediment collected into paper bags from stream bed and banks, alternatively soil from areas devoid of streams. The sampling density is not consistent throughout the covered area and varies from regular with 1 sample per 30 to 50 km2 to scarce and irregular in other areas. Analyses were made on screened < 0.1 mm or <0.075 mm grain size fractions.

The ESS-DIVE sample identifiers and metadata reporting format primarily follows the System for Earth Sample Registration (SESAR) Global Sample Number (IGSN) guide and template, with modifications to address Environmental Systems Science (ESS) sample needs and practicalities (IGSN-ESS). IGSNs are associated with standardized metadata to characterize a variety of different sample types (e.g. object type, material) and describe sample collection details (e.g. latitude, longitude, environmental context, date, collection method). Globally unique sample identifiers, particularly IGSNs, facilitate sample discovery, tracking, and reuse; they are especially useful when sample data is shared with collaborators, sent to different laboratories or user facilities for analyses, or distributed in different data files, datasets, and/or publications. To develop recommendations for multidisciplinary ecosystem and environmental sciences, we first conducted research on related sample standards and templates. We provide a comparison of existing sample reporting conventions, which includes mapping metadata elements across existing standards and Environment Ontology (ENVO) terms for sample object types and environmental materials. We worked with eight U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funded projects, including those from Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and Subsurface Biogeochemical Research Scientific Focus Areas. Project scientists tested the process of registering samples for IGSNs and associated metadata in workflows for multidisciplinary ecosystem sciences.more » We provide modified IGSN metadata guidelines to account for needs of a variety of related biological and environmental samples. While generally following the IGSN core descriptive metadata schema, we provide recommendations for extending sample type terms, and connecting to related templates geared towards biodiversity (Darwin Core) and genomic (Minimum Information about any Sequence, MIxS) samples and specimens. ESS-DIVE recommends registering samples for IGSNs through SESAR, and we include instructions for registration using the IGSN-ESS guidelines. Our resulting sample reporting guidelines, template (IGSN-ESS), and identifier approach can be used by any researcher with sample data for ecosystem sciences.« less

Establishment specific sampling results for Raw Beef sampling projects. Current data is updated quarterly; archive data is updated annually. Data is split by FY. See the FSIS website for additional information.

Key Table Information.Table Title.Manufacturing: E-Commerce Statistics for the U.S.: 2022.Table ID.ECNECOMM2022.EC2231ECOMM.Survey/Program.Economic Census.Year.2022.Dataset.ECN Core Statistics Manufacturing: E-Commerce Statistics for the U.S.: 2022.Release Date.2025-01-23.Release Schedule.The Economic Census occurs every five years, in years ending in 2 and 7.The data in this file come from the 2022 Economic Census data files released on a flow basis starting in January 2024 with First Look Statistics. Preliminary U.S. totals released in January 2024 are superseded with final data shown in the releases of later economic census statistics through March 2026.For more information about economic census planned data product releases, see 2022 Economic Census Release Schedule..Dataset Universe.The dataset universe consists of all establishments that are in operation for at least some part of 2022, are located in one of the 50 U.S. states, associated offshore areas, or the District of Columbia, have paid employees, and are classified in one of nineteen in-scope sectors defined by the 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)..Methodology.Data Items and Other Identifying Records.Sales, value of shipments, or revenue ($1,000)E-Shipments value ($1,000) E-Shipments as percent of total sales, value of shipments, or revenue (%) Range indicating imputed percentage of total sales, value of shipments, or revenueDefinitions can be found by clicking on the column header in the table or by accessing the Economic Census Glossary..Unit(s) of Observation.The reporting units for the economic census are employer establishments. An establishment is generally a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed. A company or firm is comprised of one or more in-scope establishments that operate under the ownership or control of a single organization. For some industries, the reporting units are instead groups of all establishments in the same industry belonging to the same firm..Geography Coverage.The data are shown for the U.S. level only. For information about economic census geographies, including changes for 2022, see Geographies..Industry Coverage.The data are shown at the 2- through 3-digit 2022 NAICS code levels for the U.S. For information about NAICS, see Economic Census Code Lists..Sampling.The 2022 Economic Census sample includes all active operating establishments of multi-establishment firms and approximately 1.7 million single-establishment firms, stratified by industry and state. Establishments selected to the sample receive a questionnaire. For all data on this table, establishments not selected into the sample are represented with administrative data. For more information about the sample design, see 2022 Economic Census Methodology..Confidentiality.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product to ensure appropriate access, use, and disclosure avoidance protection of the confidential source data (Project No. 7504609, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY23-099).To protect confidentiality, the U.S. Census Bureau suppresses cell values to minimize the risk of identifying a particular business’ data or identity.To comply with disclosure avoidance guidelines, data rows with fewer than three contributing firms or three contributing establishments are not presented. Additionally, establishment counts are suppressed when other select statistics in the same row are suppressed. More information on disclosure avoidance is available in the 2022 Economic Census Methodology..Technical Documentation/Methodology.For detailed information about the methods used to collect data and produce statistics, survey questionnaires, Primary Business Activity/NAICS codes, NAPCS codes, and more, see Economic Census Technical Documentation..Weights.No weighting applied as establishments not sampled are represented with administrative data..Table Information.FTP Download.https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/data/2022/sector31/.API Information.Economic census data are housed in the Census Bureau Application Programming Interface (API)..Symbols.D - Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies; data are included in higher level totalsN - Not available or not comparableS - Estimate does not meet publication standards because of high sampling variability, poor response quality, or other concerns about the estimate quality. Unpublished estimates derived from this table by subtraction are subject to these same limitations and should not be attributed to the U.S. Census Bureau. For a description of publication standards and the total quantity response rate, see link to program methodology page.X - Not applicableA - Relative standard error of 100% or morer - Reviseds - Relative standard error exceeds 40%For a complete list of symbols, see Economic Census Data Dictionary..Data-Specific Notes.Data users who create their own es...

Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive dataset of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across 5 continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated-Gaussian reference function (AKDE), Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross-validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half-sample cross-validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ($\hat{N}_\mathrm{area}$) to quantify the information content of each dataset. We found that AKDE 95\% area estimates were larger than conventional IID-based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross-validated locations included in the holdout sets by AKDE 95\% (or 50\%) estimates was 95.3\% (or 50.1\%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing $\hat{N}_\mathrm{area}$. To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal's movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small $\hat{N}_\mathrm{area}$. While 72\% of the 369 empirical datasets had \textgreater1000 total observations, only 4\% had an $\hat{N}_\mathrm{area}$ \textgreater1000, where 30\% had an $\hat{N}_\mathrm{area}$ \textless30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small $\hat{N}_\mathrm{area}$, AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.

Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 8 No 17 This document reports on the outcomes of a workshop held at Marine Scotland Science, Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen in April 2016. The workshop was convened to examine Version 1 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment (GSMA) data product and revue the methods used to derive it. This data product was derived to support assessment of the state of fish species and communities, and the role of fish in the structure and functioning of marine food webs across the entire Northeast Atlantic region, from Norway to Gibraltar. As such, the data product was intended to meet the monitoring programme obligations of European Union Member States bordering the Northeast Atlantic region under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The job of the workshop was to ensure that the GSMA data product was fit for this purpose; that it could indeed meet the data needs necessary to calculate all fish species and community related indicators used in the upcoming OSPAR Interim Assessment 2017 (IA2017), as well indicators likely to be needed in future assessment cycles. The workshop concluded that the data product was indeed fit for the purpose intended. Some minor issues in methodology were identified. These have subsequently been addressed, the methodology documentation (Moriarty et al. 2017) updated to reflect these changes, and a Version 2 data product produced. The Version 2 GSMA data product also takes into account any updates made by national data providers to the database held on the DATRAS portal over the intervening period between the download from which Version 1 was derived and up to approximately the end of October 2016 when data were downloaded to derive the Version 2 data product. The main part of this document then proceeds to describe the content of the Version 2 GSMA data product. For each survey's standard monitoring programme (excludes samples collected before survey protocols became fully established and trawl samples of extreme short and extreme long tow duration: see Moriarty et al. (2017) for further details), a series of diagnostic plots is presented that display the variation in, and relationships between, a range of key parameter values, temporal trends in sampling effort, and sampling frequency distributions for each ICES statistical rectangle covered by the survey. Charts are provided showing the locations of all trawl samples collected by each survey's standard monitoring programme. Two criteria for the inclusion of ICES statistical rectangles as part of each surveys standard survey area are presented. These include a new criterion not used in Moriarty et al. (2017) aimed at ensuring that, not only are rectangles sampled reasonably frequently, but that they are also sampled regularly throughout the course of each survey's time series. The consequences of applying these two criteria are explained and resulting standard survey areas for each individual survey data product are illustrated.

Two synoptic sampling campaigns were conducted near Breckenridge, Colorado, to quantify metal loading to Illinois Gulch, a tributary of the Blue River. The first campaign, conducted in August 2016, was designed to determine the degree to which Illinois Gulch loses water to the underlying mine workings, and to determine the effect of these losses on observed metal loads. The second campaign, conducted in September 2017, was designed to evaluate metal loading within Iron Springs, a subwatershed that was responsible for the majority of the metal loading observed in 2016. A continuous, instream injection of a sodium bromide (NaBr) tracer was initiated at the head of the respective study reaches several days prior to both synoptic sampling campaigns and maintained throughout the duration of each study. Bromide concentrations were subsequently used to determine streamflow in gaining stream reaches using the tracer-dilution method, and as an indicator of hydrologic connections between th ...

This data set contains a single table of descriptions of benthic samples collected in 1998 at Nelson and Izembek lagoons, Alaska. This includes: the weight of the sample, the species or species group of benthic animals (also vegetation) and their number, size and weight, and the amount of sand and gravel. These data provide a basis for additional studies that includes sampling of the benthos in Nelson and/or Izembek lagoons. These data are important as historic information useful in examining long-term changes in the lagoons in light of changing climate.

Research ships working at sea map the seafloor. The ships collect bathymetry data. Bathymetry is the measurement of how deep the sea is. Bathymetry is the study of the shape and features of the seabed. The name comes from Greek words meaning "deep" and “measure". Backscatter is the measurement of how hard the seabed is.Bathymetry and backscatter data are collected on board boats working at sea. The boats use special equipment called a multibeam echosounder. A multibeam echosounder is a type of sonar that is used to map the seabed. Sound waves are emitted in a fan shape beneath the boat. The amount of time it takes for the sound waves to bounce off the bottom of the sea and return to a receiver is used to find out the water depth. The strength of the sound wave is used to find out how hard the bottom of the sea is. A strong sound wave indicates a hard surface (rocks, gravel), and a weak signal indicates a soft surface (silt, mud). The word backscatter comes from the fact that different bottom types “scatter” sound waves differently.Using the equipment also allows predictions as to the type of material present on the seabed e.g. rocks, pebbles, sand, mud. To confirm this, sediment samples are taken from the seabed. This process is called ground-truthing or sampling.Grab sampling is the most popular method of ground-truthing. There are three main types of grab used depending on the size of the vessel and the weather conditions; Day Grab, Shipek or Van Veen Grabs. The grabs take a sample of sediment from the surface layer of the seabed. The samples are then sent to a lab for analysis. Particle size analysis (PSA) has been carried out on samples collected since 2004. The results are used to cross-reference the seabed sediment classifications that are made from the bathymetry and backscatter datasets and are used to create seabed sediment maps (mud, sand, gravel, rock). Sediments have been classified based on percentage sand, mud and gravel (after Folk 1954).This dataset show locations that have completed samples from the seabed around Ireland. The bottom of the sea is known as the seabed or seafloor. These samples are known as grab samples. This is a dataset collected from 2001 to 2019.It is a vector dataset. Vector data portrays the world using points, lines and polygons (areas). The sample data is shown as points. Each point holds information on the surveyID, year, vessel name, sample id, instrument used, date, time, latitude, longitude, depth, report, recovery, percentage of mud, sand and gravel, description and folk classification.The dataset was mapped as part of the Irish National Seabed Survey (INSS) and INFOMAR (Integrated Mapping for the Sustainable Development of Ireland’s Marine Resource). Samples from related projects are also included: ADFish, DCU, FEAS, GATEWAYS, IMAGIN, IMES, INIS_HYRDO, JIBS, MESH, SCALLOP, SEAI and UCC.

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) has provided global atmospheric analyses from its archive for many years. The ERA-15 Re-analysis project was devised in response to wishes expressed by many users for a data set generated by a modern, consistent, and invariant data assimilation system. The ERA-15 project produced a long time-series (January 1979 - February 1994) of consistent meteorological analyses using a single version of the ECMWF model.

This dataset is a direct copy of disk 1 of the ECMWF Re-Anlysis Sample Data CD-ROM. It contain some evaporation data which is not elsewhere in the CEDA archive. The data are 2.5 degree gridded at 12Z daily for the Re-Analysis period, 1979-1993. The parameters are:

U10 - The 10 meter U wind component (also in BADC archive) V10 - The 10 meter U wind component (also in BADC archive) e - evaporation tp - Total precipitation (large scale plus convective) (also in BADC archive) tcc - Total Cloud cover (also in BADC archive) t2 - 2 meter temperature (also in BADC archive) d2 - 2 meter dew point temperature

Abstract

The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW) initiated the 2004 Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey (LDHS) to collect population-based data to inform the Health Sector Reform Programme (2000-2009). The 2004 LDHS will assist in monitoring and evaluating the performance of the Health Sector Reform Programme since 2000 by providing data to be compared with data from the first baseline survey, which was conducted when the reform programme began. The LDHS survey will also provide crucial information to help define the targets for Phase II of the Health Sector Reform Programme (2005-2008). Additionally, the 2004 LDHS results will serve as the main source of key demographic indicators in Lesotho until the 2006 population census results are available.

The LDHS was conducted using a representative sample of women and men of reproductive age.

The specific objectives were to: - Provide data at national and district levels that allow the determination of demographic indicators, particularly fertility and childhood mortality rates; - Measure changes in fertility and contraceptive use and at the same time analyse the factors that affect these changes, such as marriage patterns, desire for children, availability of contraception, breastfeeding patterns, and important social and economic factors; - Examine the basic indicators of maternal and child health in Lesotho, including nutritional status, use of antenatal and maternity services, treatment of recent episodes of childhood illness, and immunisation coverage for children; - Describe the patterns of knowledge and behaviour related to the transmission of HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis; - Estimate adult and maternal mortality ratios at the national level; - Estimate the prevalence of anaemia among children, women and men, and the prevalence of HIV among women and men at the national and district levels.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The sample for the 2004 LDHS covered the household population. A representative probability sample of more than 9,000 households was selected for the 2004 LDHS sample. This sample was constructed to allow for separate estimates for key indicators in each of the ten districts in Lesotho, as well as for urban and rural areas separately.

The survey utilized a two-stage sample design. In the first stage, 405 clusters (109 in the urban and 296 in the rural areas) were selected from a list of enumeration areas from the 1996 Population Census frame. In the second stage, a complete listing of households was carried out in each selected cluster. Households were then systematically selected for participation in the survey.

All women age 15-49 who were either permanent household residents in the 2004 LDHS sample or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed. In addition, in every second household selected for the survey, all men age 15-59 years were eligible to be interviewed if they were either permanent residents or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey. In the households selected for the men's survey, height and weight measurements were taken for eligible women and children under five years of age. Additionally, eligible women, men, and children under age five were tested in the field for anaemia, and eligible women and men were asked for an additional blood sample for anonymous testing for HIV.

Note: See detailed sample implementation in the APPENDIX A of the final 2004 Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey Final Report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Three questionnaires were used for the 2004 LDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire. To reflect relevant issues in population and health in Lesotho, the questionnaires were adapted during a series of technical meetings with various stakeholders from government ministries and agencies, nongovernmental organizations and international donors. The final draft of the questionnaire was discussed at a large meeting of the LDHS Technical Committee organized by the MOHSW and BOS. The adapted questionnaires were translated from English into Sesotho and pretested during June 2004.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all of the usual members and visitors in the selected households. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. Some basic information was also collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including age, sex, education, residence and emigration status, and relationship to the head of the household. For children under 18, survival status of the parents was determined. The Household Questionnaire also collected information on characteristics of the household’s dwelling unit, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used for the floor of the house, ownership of various durable goods, and access to health facilities. For households selected for the male survey subsample, the questionnaire was used to record height, weight, and haemoglobin measurements of women, men and children, and the respondents’ decision about whether to volunteer to give blood samples for HIV.

The Women’s Questionnaire was used to collect information from all women age 15-49. The women were asked questions on the following topics: - Background characteristics (education, residential history, media exposure, etc.) - Birth history and childhood mortality - Knowledge and use of family planning methods - Fertility preferences - Antenatal and delivery care - Breastfeeding and infant feeding practices - Vaccinations and childhood illnesses - Marriage and sexual activity - Woman’s work and husband’s background characteristics - Awareness and behaviour regarding AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and tuberculosis (TB) - Maternal mortality

The Men’s Questionnaire was administered to all men age 15-59 living in every other household in the 2004-05 LDHS sample. The Men’s Questionnaire collected much of the same information found in the Women’s Questionnaire, but was shorter because it did not contain a detailed reproductive history or questions on maternal and child health, nutrition, and maternal mortality.

Geographic coordinates were collected for each EA in the 2004 LDHS.

Cleaning operations

The processing of the 2004 LDHS results began shortly after the fieldwork commenced. Completed questionnaires were returned periodically from the field to BOS headquarters, where they were entered and edited by data processing personnel who were specially trained for this task. The data processing personnel included two supervisors, two questionnaire administrators/office editors-who ensured that the expected number of questionnaires from each cluster was received-16 data entry operators, and two secondary editors. The concurrent processing of the data was an advantage because BOS was able to advise field teams of problems detected during the data entry. In particular, tables were generated to check various data quality parameters. As a result, specific feedback was given to the teams to improve performance. The data entry and editing phase of the survey was completed in May 2005.

Response rate

Response rates are important because high non-response may affect the reliability of the results. A total of 9,903 households were selected for the sample, of which 9,025 were found to be occupied during data collection. Of the 9,025 existing households, 8,592 were successfully interviewed, yielding a household response rate of 95 percent.

In these households, 7,522 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview. Interviews were completed with 94 percent of these women. Of the 3,305 eligible men identified, 85 percent were successfully interviewed. The response rate for urban women and men is somewhat higher than for rural respondents (96 percent compared with 94 percent for women and 88 percent compared with 84 percent for men). The principal reason for non-response among eligible women and men was the failure to find individuals at home despite repeated visits to the household. The lower response rate for men reflects the more frequent and longer absences of men from the household, principally because of employment and life style.

Response rates for the HIV testing component were lower than those for the interviews.

See summarized response rates in Table 1.2 of the Final Report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2004 Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey (LSDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2004 LSDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield

Abstract

The Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The BDHS is intended to serve as a source of population and health data for policymakers and the research community. In general, the objectives of the BDHS are to: - assess the overall demographic situation in Bangladesh, - assist in the evaluation of the population and health programs in Bangladesh, and - advance survey methodology.

More specifically, the objective of the BDHS is to provide up-to-date information on fertility and childhood mortality levels; nuptiality; fertility preferences; awareness, approval, and use of family planning methods; breastfeeding practices; nutrition levels; and maternal and child health. This information is intended to assist policymakers and administrators in evaluating and designing programs and strategies for improving health and family planning services in the country.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 10-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Bangladesh is divided into six administrative divisions, 64 districts (zillas), and 490 thanas. In rural areas, thanas are divided into unions and then mauzas, a land administrative unit. Urban areas are divided into wards and then mahallas. The 1996-97 BDHS employed a nationally-representative, two-stage sample that was selected from the Integrated Multi-Purpose Master Sample (IMPS) maintained by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Each division was stratified into three groups: 1 ) statistical metropolitan areas (SMAs), 2) municipalities (other urban areas), and 3) rural areas. 3 In the rural areas, the primary sampling unit was the mauza, while in urban areas, it was the mahalla. Because the primary sampling units in the IMPS were selected with probability proportional to size from the 1991 Census frame, the units for the BDHS were sub-selected from the IMPS with equal probability so as to retain the overall probability proportional to size. A total of 316 primary sampling units were utilized for the BDHS (30 in SMAs, 42 in municipalities, and 244 in rural areas). In order to highlight changes in survey indicators over time, the 1996-97 BDHS utilized the same sample points (though not necessarily the same households) that were selected for the 1993-94 BDHS, except for 12 additional sample points in the new division of Sylhet. Fieldwork in three sample points was not possible (one in Dhaka Cantonment and two in the Chittagong Hill Tracts), so a total of 313 points were covered.

Since one objective of the BDHS is to provide separate estimates for each division as well as for urban and rural areas separately, it was necessary to increase the sampling rate for Barisal and Sylhet Divisions and for municipalities relative to the other divisions, SMAs and rural areas. Thus, the BDHS sample is not self-weighting and weighting factors have been applied to the data in this report.

Mitra and Associates conducted a household listing operation in all the sample points from 15 September to 15 December 1996. A systematic sample of 9,099 households was then selected from these lists. Every second household was selected for the men's survey, meaning that, in addition to interviewing all ever-married women age 10-49, interviewers also interviewed all currently married men age 15-59. It was expected that the sample would yield interviews with approximately 10,000 ever-married women age 10-49 and 3,000 currently married men age 15-59.

Note: See detailed in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Four types of questionnaires were used for the BDHS: a Household Questionnaire, a Women's Questionnaire, a Men' s Questionnaire and a Community Questionnaire. The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with relatively high levels of contraceptive use. These model questionnaires were adapted for use in Bangladesh during a series of meetings with a small Technical Task Force that consisted of representatives from NIPORT, Mitra and Associates, USAID/Bangladesh, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B), Population Council/Dhaka, and Macro International Inc (see Appendix D for a list of members). Draft questionnaires were then circulated to other interested groups and were reviewed by the BDHS Technical Review Committee (see Appendix D for list of members). The questionnaires were developed in English and then translated into and printed in Bangla (see Appendix E for final version in English).

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. Some basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including his/her age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. In addition, information was collected about the dwelling itself, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used to construct the house, and ownership of various consumer goods.

The Women's Questionnaire was used to collect information from ever-married women age 10-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: - Background characteristics (age, education, religion, etc.), - Reproductive history, - Knowledge and use of family planning methods, - Antenatal and delivery care, - Breastfeeding and weaning practices, - Vaccinations and health of children under age five, - Marriage, - Fertility preferences, - Husband's background and respondent's work, - Knowledge of AIDS, - Height and weight of children under age five and their mothers.

The Men's Questionnaire was used to interview currently married men age 15-59. It was similar to that for women except that it omitted the sections on reproductive history, antenatal and delivery care, breastfeeding, vaccinations, and height and weight. The Community Questionnaire was completed for each sample point and included questions about the existence in the community of income-generating activities and other development organizations and the availability of health and family planning services.

Response rate

A total of 9,099 households were selected for the sample, of which 8,682 were successfully interviewed. The shortfall is primarily due to dwellings that were vacant or in which the inhabitants had left for an extended period at the time they were visited by the interviewing teams. Of the 8,762 households occupied, 99 percent were successfully interviewed. In these households, 9,335 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview (i.e., ever-married and age 10-49) and interviews were completed for 9,127 or 98 percent of them. In the half of the households that were selected for inclusion in the men's survey, 3,611 eligible ever-married men age 15-59 were identified, of whom 3,346 or 93 percent were interviewed.

The principal reason for non-response among eligible women and men was the failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The refusal rate was low.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) non-sampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the BDHS to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the BDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the BDHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the BDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module used the Taylor

This data set is a compilation of close to 1000 epifaunal invertebrate sampling stations from over 20 research cruises to the northern Bering Sea (US side), Chukchi Sea (Russian and US sides) and Beaufort Sea (US side) from 1972 to 2012. The vast majority of stations were trawl hauls and a few were photographic sampling stations. Trawl hauls were conducted with a range of different nets including various otter trawls but mostly the 83-112 Eastern Otter trawl, and a plumb-staff beam trawl. Mesh sizes ranged from 4-38 mm in the cod end and 7-89 mm in the body of the net. Trawl duration ranged from 1-30 minutes and trawl speed ranged from 1.5-5 knots. Where available, variables compiled include cruise and station names, locations and water depth, haul and net information, contact information of data holder, as well as total abundance, biomass and taxon richness of epifaunal invertebrates. The latter is biased by varying levels of taxonomic resolution in the source data. Many fields are blank, either because the data have not yet been released as is the case for many recent cruises, or because hauls were not quantitative as is the case for some historic data sets. Data on fishes from the same hauls are not reported here. Column headers are explained in the readme file. Changes made to the original data sets provided by the project contacts or as found in data archives include, where possible: standardization of abundance to individuals per 1000 square meters; standardization of biomass to kilograms wet weight per 1000 square meters; and subtraction of obvious infaunal taxa, eggs and fragments from the taxon count. This dataset is part of the Pacific Marine Arctic Regional Synthesis (PacMARS) Project.

Abstract

This research is a survey of unregistered businesses conducted in Guatemala from Sept. 29 to Nov. 20, 2010. The study was carried out through the joint collaboration of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Data from 303 enterprises was analyzed.

Questionnaire topics include general information about a business, infrastructure and services, sales and supplies, crime, sources and access to finance, business-government relationship, assets, bribery, workforce composition, obstacles to get registration, reasons for not registering, and benefits that an establishment could get from registration. The mode of data collection is face-to-face interviews.

The Informal Surveys aim to accomplish the following objectives: 1) To provide information about the state of the private sector for informal businesses in client countries; 2) To generate information about the reasons of said informality; 3) To collect useful data for the research agenda on informality; 4) To provide information on the level of activity in the informal sector of selected urban centers in each country.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

The primary sampling unit of the Informal Surveys is an informal establishment. For Guatemala, informal firms were defined as those not registered with the Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria (SAT) or the Registro Mercantil.

Universe

The whole population, or the universe, covered in the survey is the non-agricultural informal economy.

At the beginning of each survey, a screening procedure is conducted in order to identify eligible interviewees. At this point, a full description of all the activities of the business owner or manager is taken; based on its principal activity, a business is then classified in the manufacturing or services stratum using a list of activities developed from previous iterations of the survey. Certain activities are excluded such as strictly illegal activities (e.g., prostitution or drug trafficking) as well as individual activities that are forms of selling labor like domestic servants or windshield washers.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Informal Surveys are conducted in selected urban centers, which are intended to coincide with the locations for the implementation of the main Enterprise Surveys. The overall number of interviews is pre-determined.

In Guatemala, the urban centers identified were Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango. The target sample for Guatemala City was 184 interviews and 120 interviews in Quetzaltenango.

Sampling in the Informal Surveys is conducted within clearly delineated sampling zones, which are geographically determined divisions within each urban center. Sampling zones are defined at the beginning of fieldwork, and are delineated according to the concentration and geographical dispersion of informal business activity.

The number of sampling areas, and the geographical area they contain, is determined with the goal that each sector will yield four effective interviews.

In Guatemala, each sampling area was designed to contain a physical area, on average, of no less than the equivalent of eight city blocks. These sampling areas may or may not correspond to the administrative districts of the urban center.

Moreover, in order to ensure a degree of geographical dispersion, each urban center was divided into distinct zones. In both Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango, a central zone was identified as well as four quadrants, north, south, east, and west.

In Guatemala City, 46 primary sampling areas (184/4 = 46) were required; 30 primary sampling areas (120/4 = 30) were necessary in Quetzaltenango.

The sampling areas were distributed among the zones according to estimates - determined in conversations with the local contractor - of the concentration of informal activity in each geographical zone. In Guatemala City, the distribution of the sampling areas was as follows: central - 12 sampling areas; north - 5 sampling areas; west - 5 sampling areas; south - 12 sampling areas; and east - 12 sampling areas. In Quetzaltenango, the distribution was: central - 7 sampling areas; north - 5 sampling areas; west - 7 sampling areas; south - 5 sampling areas; and east - 6 sampling areas.

In order to provide information on diverse aspects of the informal economy, the sample is designed to have equal proportions of services and manufacturing (50:50). These sectors are defined by responses provided by each informal business to a question on the business's main activity included in the screener portion of the questionnaire.

As a general rule, services must constitute an ongoing business enterprise and so exclude the sale of manual labor Manufacturing activity in the informal sector includes business activity requiring inputs and/or intermediate goods. Thus, for example, the processing of coffee, sugar, oil, dried fruit, or other processed foods is considered manufacturing, while the simple selling of these goods falls under services. If an informal business conducts a mixture of these activities, the business is considered under the manufacturing stratum.

Each sampling zone was designed with the goal of obtaining two interviews in services and two interviews in manufacturing. In order to ensure a degree of geographical dispersion within each sampling zone, two starting points were identified. Each starting point was designed to correspond to four city blocks, which were numbered sequentially.

Proceeding from each starting point, interviewers were instructed to begin on the first block (i.e, 1 or 5), defining the starting block and corner. Each interviewer was instructed to attempt to achieve two interviews from each starting point, ideally one interview in manufacturing and one in services.

Interviewers were instructed to proceed clockwise around block 1 from Starting Point A; if the target interviews were not achieved, interviewers proceeded to block 2, Starting Point A, and so forth until completing a circuit of block 4. After achieving two interviews from starting point A, interviewers were instructed to cease work in the blocks assigned to that given starting point and repeat the same procedure from starting point B, beginning with block 5.

Using the local knowledge of enumerators and the implementing contractor to help identify informal business activity, within each block all houses and shops were checked for unregistered businesses, following the pre-fixed route described above, until the allotted quota of interviews for the sampling area was reached. The implementing contractor reported that informal businesses were identified frequently as those that did not display commercial registration or sanitation permits, as required by Guatemalan law. Informal firms were also frequently identified as those issuing receipts (if at all) without an NIT (Número de Identificación Tributaria), which Guatemalan law requires on sales records.

Each sampling area, including its two starting points, were delineated using Google maps (or Google Earth), with the GPS coordinates of the starting points being systematically recorded.

Additionally, when obtaining a complete interview, the exact address of the informal business (or where the interview took place) was registered by the interviewer. Once in the office, this address was searched in Google maps, and its GPS coordinates were registered in a fieldwork report.

If no address was immediately available, using local knowledge, the GPS coordinates were determined using imaging via Google maps.

In order to preserve confidentiality, the exact coordinates of businesses are not published.

Complete information regarding the sampling methodology can be found in "Description of Guatemala Informal Survey Implementation" in "Technical Documents" folder.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The current survey instrument is available: - Informal Questionnaire.

Description of the questionnaire sections: The screener information section (section Sc.) contains questions about the business activity and basic physical location of informal businesses; section B provides general information on the business and its ownership; section C discusses location and infrastructure; section I contains questions on crime; section D information on sales and supplies; section K is on finance; section L poses questions on labor; section R contains questions on registration; section M the business environment; and section N includes questions on business productivity.

Cleaning operations

Data entry and quality controls are implemented by the contractor and data is delivered to the World Bank in batches (typically 10%, 50% and 100%). These data deliveries are checked for logical consistency, out of range values, skip patterns, and duplicate entries. Problems are flagged by the World Bank and corrected by the implementing contractor through data checks, callbacks, and revisiting establishments.

Response rate

The overall survey response rate among contacted, eligible businesses for the Guatemala Informal Survey was estimated at 20%.

Online imbalanced learning is an emerging topic that combines the challenges of class imbalance and concept drift. However, current works account for issues of class imbalance and concept drift. And only few works have considered these issues simultaneously. To this end, this paper proposes an entropy-based dynamic ensemble classification algorithm (EDAC) to consider data streams with class imbalance and concept drift simultaneously. First, to address the problem of imbalanced learning in training data chunks arriving at different times, EDAC adopts an entropy-based balanced strategy. It divides the data chunks into multiple balanced sample pairs based on the differences in the information entropy between classes in the sample data chunk. Additionally, we propose a density-based sampling method to improve the accuracy of classifying minority class samples into high quality samples and common samples via the density of similar samples. In this manner high quality and common samples are randomly selected for training the classifier. Finally, to solve the issue of concept drift, EDAC designs and implements an ensemble classifier that uses a self-feedback strategy to determine the initial weight of the classifier by adjusting the weight of the sub-classifier according to the performance on the arrived data chunks. The experimental results demonstrate that EDAC outperforms five state-of-the-art algorithms considering four synthetic and one real-world data streams.

Studies of complex disorders benefit from integrative analyses of multiple omics data. Yet, sample mix-ups frequently occur in multi-omics studies, weakening statistical power and risking false findings. Accurately aligning sample information, genotype, and corresponding omics data is critical for integrative analyses. We developed DRAMS (https://github.com/Yi-Jiang/DRAMS) to Detect and Re-Align Mixed-up Samples to address the sample mix-up problem. It uses a logistic regression model followed by a modified topological sorting algorithm to identify the potential true IDs based on data relationships of multi-omics. According to tests using simulated data, the more types of omics data used or the smaller the proportion of mix-ups, the better that DRAMS performs. Applying DRAMS to real data from the PsychENCODE BrainGVEX project, we detected and corrected 201 (12.5% of total data generated) mix-ups. Of the 21 mix-ups involving errors of racial identity, DRAMS re-assigned all data to the correct racial group in the 1000 Genomes project. In doing so, quantitative trait loci (QTL) (FDR

Water sampling stations are designated locations along a water distribution system where water samples are collected for quality analysis. These stations are crucial for monitoring water quality, identifying potential issues, and ensuring safe drinking water. They are typically found at street level, connected to water mains, and equipped with features to facilitate sample collection, such as a sink and spigot.