Dataset

This dataset was created by Pinky Verma

Contents

To create the dataset, the top 10 countries leading in the incidence of COVID-19 in the world were selected as of October 22, 2020 (on the eve of the second full of pandemics), which are presented in the Global 500 ranking for 2020: USA, India, Brazil, Russia, Spain, France and Mexico. For each of these countries, no more than 10 of the largest transnational corporations included in the Global 500 rating for 2020 and 2019 were selected separately. The arithmetic averages were calculated and the change (increase) in indicators such as profitability and profitability of enterprises, their ranking position (competitiveness), asset value and number of employees. The arithmetic mean values of these indicators for all countries of the sample were found, characterizing the situation in international entrepreneurship as a whole in the context of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020 on the eve of the second wave of the pandemic. The data is collected in a general Microsoft Excel table. Dataset is a unique database that combines COVID-19 statistics and entrepreneurship statistics. The dataset is flexible data that can be supplemented with data from other countries and newer statistics on the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the fact that the data in the dataset are not ready-made numbers, but formulas, when adding and / or changing the values in the original table at the beginning of the dataset, most of the subsequent tables will be automatically recalculated and the graphs will be updated. This allows the dataset to be used not just as an array of data, but as an analytical tool for automating scientific research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis on international entrepreneurship. The dataset includes not only tabular data, but also charts that provide data visualization. The dataset contains not only actual, but also forecast data on morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 for the period of the second wave of the pandemic in 2020. The forecasts are presented in the form of a normal distribution of predicted values and the probability of their occurrence in practice. This allows for a broad scenario analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis on international entrepreneurship, substituting various predicted morbidity and mortality rates in risk assessment tables and obtaining automatically calculated consequences (changes) on the characteristics of international entrepreneurship. It is also possible to substitute the actual values identified in the process and following the results of the second wave of the pandemic to check the reliability of pre-made forecasts and conduct a plan-fact analysis. The dataset contains not only the numerical values of the initial and predicted values of the set of studied indicators, but also their qualitative interpretation, reflecting the presence and level of risks of a pandemic and COVID-19 crisis for international entrepreneurship.

This is a dataset downloaded off excelbianalytics.com created off of random VBA logic. I recently performed an extensive exploratory data analysis on it and I included new columns to it, namely: Unit margin, Order year, Order month, Order weekday and Order_Ship_Days which I think can help with analysis on the data. I shared it because I thought it was a great dataset to practice analytical processes on for newbies like myself.

Subject: EducationSpecific: Online Learning and FunType: Questionnaire survey data (csv / excel)Date: February - March 2020Content: Students' views about online learning and fun Data Source: Project OLAFValue: These data provide students' beliefs about how learning occurs and correlations with fun. Participants were 206 students from the OU

This dataset contains one Excel sheet and five Word documents. In this dataset, Simulation.xlsx describes the parameter values used for the numerical analysis based on empirical data. In this Excel sheet, we calculated the values of each capped call-option model parameter. Computation of Table 2.docx and other documents show the results of the comparative statistics.

The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) recently established SCINet , which consists of a shared high performance computing resource, Ceres, and the dedicated high-speed Internet2 network used to access Ceres. Current and potential SCINet users are using and generating very large datasets so SCINet needs to be provisioned with adequate data storage for their active computing. It is not designed to hold data beyond active research phases. At the same time, the National Agricultural Library has been developing the Ag Data Commons, a research data catalog and repository designed for public data release and professional data curation. Ag Data Commons needs to anticipate the size and nature of data it will be tasked with handling. The ARS Web-enabled Databases Working Group, organized under the SCINet initiative, conducted a study to establish baseline data storage needs and practices, and to make projections that could inform future infrastructure design, purchases, and policies. The SCINet Web-enabled Databases Working Group helped develop the survey which is the basis for an internal report. While the report was for internal use, the survey and resulting data may be generally useful and are being released publicly. From October 24 to November 8, 2016 we administered a 17-question survey (Appendix A) by emailing a Survey Monkey link to all ARS Research Leaders, intending to cover data storage needs of all 1,675 SY (Category 1 and Category 4) scientists. We designed the survey to accommodate either individual researcher responses or group responses. Research Leaders could decide, based on their unit's practices or their management preferences, whether to delegate response to a data management expert in their unit, to all members of their unit, or to themselves collate responses from their unit before reporting in the survey. Larger storage ranges cover vastly different amounts of data so the implications here could be significant depending on whether the true amount is at the lower or higher end of the range. Therefore, we requested more detail from "Big Data users," those 47 respondents who indicated they had more than 10 to 100 TB or over 100 TB total current data (Q5). All other respondents are called "Small Data users." Because not all of these follow-up requests were successful, we used actual follow-up responses to estimate likely responses for those who did not respond. We defined active data as data that would be used within the next six months. All other data would be considered inactive, or archival. To calculate per person storage needs we used the high end of the reported range divided by 1 for an individual response, or by G, the number of individuals in a group response. For Big Data users we used the actual reported values or estimated likely values. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Appendix A: ARS data storage survey questions. File Name: Appendix A.pdfResource Description: The full list of questions asked with the possible responses. The survey was not administered using this PDF but the PDF was generated directly from the administered survey using the Print option under Design Survey. Asterisked questions were required. A list of Research Units and their associated codes was provided in a drop down not shown here. Resource Software Recommended: Adobe Acrobat,url: https://get.adobe.com/reader/ Resource Title: CSV of Responses from ARS Researcher Data Storage Survey. File Name: Machine-readable survey response data.csvResource Description: CSV file includes raw responses from the administered survey, as downloaded unfiltered from Survey Monkey, including incomplete responses. Also includes additional classification and calculations to support analysis. Individual email addresses and IP addresses have been removed. This information is that same data as in the Excel spreadsheet (also provided).Resource Title: Responses from ARS Researcher Data Storage Survey. File Name: Data Storage Survey Data for public release.xlsxResource Description: MS Excel worksheet that Includes raw responses from the administered survey, as downloaded unfiltered from Survey Monkey, including incomplete responses. Also includes additional classification and calculations to support analysis. Individual email addresses and IP addresses have been removed.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel

This dataset contains video game sales data prepared for an Excel data analysis and dashboard project.

It includes detailed information on:

Game titles

Platforms

Genres

Publishers

Regional and global sales

The dataset was cleaned, structured, and analyzed in Microsoft Excel to explore patterns in the global video game market. It can be used to:

Practice data cleaning and pivot tables

Build interactive dashboards

Perform sales comparisons across regions and genres

Develop business insights from entertainment data

🧩 File Information

Format: .xlsx (Excel Workbook)

Columns: Name, Platform, Year, Genre, Publisher, NA_Sales, EU_Sales, JP_Sales, Other_Sales, Global_Sales

💡 Use Cases

Excel dashboard and chart creation

Data visualization and storytelling

Business and market analysis practice

Portfolio or learning projects

👤 Prepared by

Adewale Lateef W — for data analysis and Excel dashboard learning purposes.

Raw data outputs 1-18 Raw data output 1. Differentially expressed genes in AML CSCs compared with GTCs as well as in TCGA AML cancer samples compared with normal ones. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and TCGA data analysis. Raw data output 2. Commonly and uniquely differentially expressed genes in AML CSC/GTC microarray and TCGA bulk RNA-seq datasets. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and TCGA data analysis. Raw data output 3. Common differentially expressed genes between training and test set samples the microarray dataset. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray data analysis. Raw data output 4. Detailed information on the samples of the breast cancer microarray dataset (GSE52327) used in this study. Raw data output 5. Differentially expressed genes in breast CSCs compared with GTCs as well as in TCGA BRCA cancer samples compared with normal ones. Raw data output 6. Commonly and uniquely differentially expressed genes in breast cancer CSC/GTC microarray and TCGA BRCA bulk RNA-seq datasets. This data was generated based on the results of breast cancer microarray and TCGA BRCA data analysis. CSC, and GTC are abbreviations of cancer stem cell, and general tumor cell, respectively. Raw data output 7. Differential and common co-expression and protein-protein interaction of genes between CSC and GTC samples. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and STRING database-based protein-protein interaction data analysis. CSC, and GTC are abbreviations of cancer stem cell, and general tumor cell, respectively. Raw data output 8. Differentially expressed genes between AML dormant and active CSCs. This data was generated based on the results of AML scRNA-seq data analysis. Raw data output 9. Uniquely expressed genes in dormant or active AML CSCs. This data was generated based on the results of AML scRNA-seq data analysis. Raw data output 10. Intersections between the targeting transcription factors of AML key CSC genes and differentially expressed genes between AML CSCs vs GTCs and between dormant and active AML CSCs or the uniquely expressed genes in either class of CSCs. Raw data output 11. Targeting desirableness score of AML key CSC genes and their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 12. CSC-specific targeting desirableness score of AML key CSC genes and their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 13. The protein-protein interactions between AML key CSC genes with themselves and their targeting transcription factors. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and STRING database-based protein-protein interaction data analysis. Raw data output 14. The previously confirmed associations of genes having the highest targeting desirableness and CSC-specific targeting desirableness scores with AML or other cancers’ (stem) cells as well as hematopoietic stem cells. These data were generated based on a PubMed database-based literature mining. Raw data output 15. Drug score of available drugs and bioactive small molecules targeting AML key CSC genes and/or their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 16. CSC-specific drug score of available drugs and bioactive small molecules targeting AML key CSC genes and/or their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 17. Candidate drugs for experimental validation. These drugs were selected based on their respective (CSC-specific) drug scores. CSC is the abbreviation of cancer stem cell. Raw data output 18. Detailed information on the samples of the AML microarray dataset GSE30375 used in this study.

Data organization for the figures in the document: Figure 3A LineOutWithSun_SSAzi_135to225_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls Figure 3b LineOutWithSun_SSAzi_m45to45_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls Figure 4 fulllinear_inDic_SqAzi_m180to0_CP_20to50_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls fulllinear_inDic_SqAzi_m180to0_CP_20to50_green_Sim_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls Figure 5a LineOut_Camera_Elevation_SqAzi_m180to0_green_Sim_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls LineOut_Camera_Elevation_SqAzi_m180to0_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls Figure 5b LineOut_Camera_Elevation_SqAzi_0to180_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls LineOut_Camera_Elevation_SqAzi_0to180_green_Sim_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls Figure 6a LineOutColor_SqAzi_m180to0_CP_20to50_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls Figure 6b LineOutROI_SqAzi_m180to0_CP_20to50_green_Correct_INFO.xls Figure 7 fulllinear_inDic_SqAzi_m180to0_CP_20to50_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls LineOut_MeshAoPDif_Camera_Elevation_SqAzi_0to180_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls LineOut_MeshAoPDif_Camera_Elevation_SqAzi_m180to0_green_Correct_ROI5_INFO.xls

Dataset

This dataset was created by Aziza Afrin

Contents

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Excel population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Excel. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Excel by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Excel.

Key observations

The largest age group in Excel, AL was for the group of age 45 to 49 years years with a population of 74 (15.64%), according to the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in Excel, AL was the 85 years and over years with a population of 2 (0.42%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the Excel is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of Excel total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Excel Population by Age. You can refer the same here

Sample data for exercises in Further Adventures in Data Cleaning.

The datasets in this zip file are in support of Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) report FHWA-JPO-16-385, "Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation (AMS) Testbed Development and Evaluation to Support Dynamic Mobility Applications (DMA) and Active Transportation and Demand Management (ATDM) Programs — Evaluation Report for ATDM Program," https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32520 and FHWA-JPO-16-373, "Analysis, modeling, and simulation (AMS) testbed development and evaluation to support dynamic mobility applications (DMA) and active transportation and demand management (ATDM) programs : Dallas testbed analysis plan," https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/32106 The files in this zip file are specifically related to the Dallas Testbed. The compressed zip files total 2.2 GB in size. The files have been uploaded as-is; no further documentation was supplied by NTL. All located .docx files were converted to .pdf document files which are an open, archival format. These pdfs were then added to the zip file alongside the original .docx files. These files can be unzipped using any zip compression/decompression software. This zip file contains files in the following formats: .pdf document files which can be read using any pdf reader; .cvs text files which can be read using any text editor; .txt text files which can be read using any text editor; .docx document files which can be read in Microsoft Word and some other word processing programs; . xlsx spreadsheet files which can be read in Microsoft Excel and some other spreadsheet programs; .dat data files which may be text or multimedia; as well as GIS or mapping files in the fowlling formats: .mxd, .dbf, .prj, .sbn, .shp., .shp.xml; which may be opened in ArcGIS or other GIS software. [software requirements] These files were last accessed in 2017.

The Florida Flood Hub for Applied Research and Innovation and the U.S. Geological Survey have developed projected future change factors for precipitation depth-duration-frequency (DDF) curves at 242 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 stations in Florida. The change factors were computed as the ratio of projected future to historical extreme-precipitation depths fitted to extreme-precipitation data from downscaled climate datasets using a constrained maximum likelihood (CML) approach as described in https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20225093. The change factors correspond to the period 2020-59 (centered in 2040) or to the period 2050-89 (centered in the year 2070) as compared to the 1966-2005 historical period. A Microsoft Excel workbook is provided that tabulates best models for each downscaled climate dataset and for all downscaled climate datasets considered together. Best models were identified based on how well the models capture the climatology and interannual variability of four climate extreme indices using the Model Climatology Index (MCI) and the Model Variability Index (MVI) of Srivastava and others (2020). The four indices consist of annual maxima consecutive precipitation for durations of 1, 3, 5, and 7 days compared against the same indices computed based on the PRISM and SFWMD gridded precipitation datasets for five climate regions: climate region 1 in Northwest Florida, 2 in North Florida, 3 in North Central Florida, 4 in South Central Florida, and climate region 5 in South Florida. The PRISM dataset is based on the Parameter-elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model interpolation method of Daly and others (2008). The South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD) precipitation super-grid is a gridded precipitation dataset developed by modelers at the agency for use in hydrologic modeling (SFWMD, 2005). This dataset is considered by the SFWMD as the best available gridded rainfall dataset for south Florida and was used in addition to PRISM to identify best models in the South Central and South Florida climate regions. Best models were selected based on MCI and MVI evaluated within each individual downscaled dataset. In addition, best models were selected by comparison across datasets and referred to as "ALL DATASETS" hereafter. Due to the small sample size, all models in the using the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (JupiterWRF) dataset were considered as best models.

This dataset contains data collected during a study ("Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review") conducted by Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu), Nina Rizun, Magdalena Ciesielska (Gdańsk University of Technology), Charalampos Alexopoulos (University of the Aegean) and Andrea Miletič (University of Zagreb) It being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review" paper (pre-print is available in Open Access here -> https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10234) and in order for other researchers to use these data in their own work.

The protocol is intended for the Systematic Literature review on the topic of High-value Datasets with the aim to gather information on how the topic of High-value datasets (HVD) and their determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, incl. the indicators used in them, involved stakeholders, data-related aspects, and frameworks. The data in this dataset were collected in the result of the SLR over Scopus, Web of Science, and Digital Government Research library (DGRL) in 2023.

Methodology

To understand how HVD determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, all relevant literature covering this topic has been studied. To this end, the SLR was carried out to by searching digital libraries covered by Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Digital Government Research library (DGRL).

These databases were queried for keywords ("open data" OR "open government data") AND ("high-value data*" OR "high value data*"), which were applied to the article title, keywords, and abstract to limit the number of papers to those, where these objects were primary research objects rather than mentioned in the body, e.g., as a future work. After deduplication, 11 articles were found unique and were further checked for relevance. As a result, a total of 9 articles were further examined. Each study was independently examined by at least two authors.

To attain the objective of our study, we developed the protocol, where the information on each selected study was collected in four categories: (1) descriptive information, (2) approach- and research design- related information, (3) quality-related information, (4) HVD determination-related information.

Test procedure Each study was independently examined by at least two authors, where after the in-depth examination of the full-text of the article, the structured protocol has been filled for each study. The structure of the survey is available in the supplementary file available (see Protocol_HVD_SLR.odt, Protocol_HVD_SLR.docx) The data collected for each study by two researchers were then synthesized in one final version by the third researcher.

Description of the data in this data set

Protocol_HVD_SLR provides the structure of the protocol Spreadsheets #1 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies. Spreadsheet#2 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases, i.e. before filtering out irrelevant studies

The information on each selected study was collected in four categories: (1) descriptive information, (2) approach- and research design- related information, (3) quality-related information, (4) HVD determination-related information

Descriptive information
1) Article number - a study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet 2) Complete reference - the complete source information to refer to the study 3) Year of publication - the year in which the study was published 4) Journal article / conference paper / book chapter - the type of the paper -{journal article, conference paper, book chapter} 5) DOI / Website- a link to the website where the study can be found 6) Number of citations - the number of citations of the article in Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science 7) Availability in OA - availability of an article in the Open Access 8) Keywords - keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors 9) Relevance for this study - what is the relevance level of the article for this study? {high / medium / low}

Approach- and research design-related information 10) Objective / RQ - the research objective / aim, established research questions 11) Research method (including unit of analysis) - the methods used to collect data, including the unit of analy-sis (country, organisation, specific unit that has been ana-lysed, e.g., the number of use-cases, scope of the SLR etc.) 12) Contributions - the contributions of the study 13) Method - whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach? 14) Availability of the underlying research data- whether there is a reference to the publicly available underly-ing research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data, or explanation why these data are not shared? 15) Period under investigation - period (or moment) in which the study was conducted 16) Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches - does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study?

Quality- and relevance- related information
17) Quality concerns - whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited infor-mation about the research methods used)? 18) Primary research object - is the HVD a primary research object in the study? (primary - the paper is focused around the HVD determination, sec-ondary - mentioned but not studied (e.g., as part of discus-sion, future work etc.))

HVD determination-related information
19) HVD definition and type of value - how is the HVD defined in the article and / or any other equivalent term? 20) HVD indicators - what are the indicators to identify HVD? How were they identified? (components & relationships, “input -> output") 21) A framework for HVD determination - is there a framework presented for HVD identification? What components does it consist of and what are the rela-tionships between these components? (detailed description) 22) Stakeholders and their roles - what stakeholders or actors does HVD determination in-volve? What are their roles? 23) Data - what data do HVD cover? 24) Level (if relevant) - what is the level of the HVD determination covered in the article? (e.g., city, regional, national, international)

Format of the file .xls, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only), .odt, .docx

Licenses or restrictions CC-BY

For more info, see README.txt

The Delta Neighborhood Physical Activity Study was an observational study designed to assess characteristics of neighborhood built environments associated with physical activity. It was an ancillary study to the Delta Healthy Sprouts Project and therefore included towns and neighborhoods in which Delta Healthy Sprouts participants resided. The 12 towns were located in the Lower Mississippi Delta region of Mississippi. Data were collected via electronic surveys between August 2016 and September 2017 using the Rural Active Living Assessment (RALA) tools and the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT). Scale scores for the RALA Programs and Policies Assessment and the Town-Wide Assessment were computed using the scoring algorithms provided for these tools via SAS software programming. The Street Segment Assessment and CPAT do not have associated scoring algorithms and therefore no scores are provided for them. Because the towns were not randomly selected and the sample size is small, the data may not be generalizable to all rural towns in the Lower Mississippi Delta region of Mississippi. Dataset one contains data collected with the RALA Programs and Policies Assessment (PPA) tool. Dataset two contains data collected with the RALA Town-Wide Assessment (TWA) tool. Dataset three contains data collected with the RALA Street Segment Assessment (SSA) tool. Dataset four contains data collected with the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT). [Note : title changed 9/4/2020 to reflect study name] Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Dataset One RALA PPA Data Dictionary. File Name: RALA PPA Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset one collected using the RALA PPA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Two RALA TWA Data Dictionary. File Name: RALA TWA Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset two collected using the RALA TWA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Three RALA SSA Data Dictionary. File Name: RALA SSA Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset three collected using the RALA SSA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Four CPAT Data Dictionary. File Name: CPAT Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset four collected using the CPAT.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset One RALA PPA. File Name: RALA PPA Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the RALA PPA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Two RALA TWA. File Name: RALA TWA Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the RALA TWA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Three RALA SSA. File Name: RALA SSA Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the RALA SSA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Four CPAT. File Name: CPAT Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the CPAT.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Data Dictionary. File Name: DataDictionary_RALA_PPA_SSA_TWA_CPAT.csvResource Description: This is a combined data dictionary from each of the 4 dataset files in this set.

This repository contains the data supporting the manuscript "A Generic Scenario Analysis of End-of-Life Plastic Management: Chemical Additives" (to be) submitted to the Energy and Environmental Science Journal https://pubs.rsc.org/en/journals/journalissues/ee#!recentarticles&adv This repository contains Excel spreadsheets used to calculate material flow throughout the plastics life cycle, with a strong emphasis on chemical additives in the end-of-life stages. Three major scenarios were presented in the manuscript: 1) mechanical recycling (existing recycling infrastructure), 2) implementing chemical recycling to the existing plastics recycling, and 3) extracting chemical additives before the manufacturing stage. Users would primarily modify values on the yellow tab "US 2018 Facts - Sensitivity". Values highlighted in yellow may be changed for sensitivity analysis purposes. Please note that the values shown for MSW generated, recycled, incinerated, landfilled, composted, imported, exported, re-exported, and other categories in this tab were based on 2018 data. Analysis for other years can be made possible with a replicate version of this spreadsheet and the necessary data to replace those of 2018. Most of the tabs, especially those that contain "Stream # - Description", do not require user interaction. They are intermediate calculations that change according to the user inputs. It is available for the user to see so that the calculation/method is transparent. The major results of these individual stream tabs are ultimately compiled into one summary tab. All streams throughout the plastics life cycle, for each respective scenario (1, 2, and 3), are shown in the "US Mat Flow Analysis 2018" tab. For each stream, we accounted the approximate mass of plastics found in MSW, additives that may be present, and non-plastics. Each spreadsheet contains a representative diagram that matches the stream label. This illustration is placed to aid the user with understanding the connection between each stage in the plastics' life cycle. For example, the Scenario 1 spreadsheet uniquely contains Material Flow Analysis Summary, in addition to the LCI. In the "Material Flow Analysis Summary" tab, we represented the input, output, releases, exposures, and greenhouse gas emissions based on the amount of materials inputted into a specific stage in the plastics life cycle. The "Life Cycle Inventory" tab contributes additional calculations to estimate land, air, and water releases. Figures and Data - A gs analysis on eol plastic management This word document contains the raw data used to create all the figures in the main manuscript. The major references used to obtain the data are also included where appropriate.

The following datasets are based on the adult (age 21 and over) beneficiary population and consist of aggregate MHS data derived from Medi-Cal claims, encounter, and eligibility systems. These datasets were developed in accordance with California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 14707.5 (added as part of Assembly Bill 470 on 10/7/17). Please contact BHData@dhcs.ca.gov for any questions or to request previous years’ versions of these datasets. Note: The Performance Dashboard AB 470 Report Application Excel tool development has been discontinued. Please see the Behavioral Health reporting data hub at https://behavioralhealth-data.dhcs.ca.gov/ for access to dashboards utilizing these datasets and other behavioral health data.

File name definitions:

'...v_50_175_250_300...' - dataset for velocity ranges [50, 175] + [250, 300] m/s

'...v_175_250...' - dataset for velocity range [175, 250] m/s

'ANNdevelop...' - used to perform 9 parametric sub-analyses where, in each one, many ANNs are developed (trained, validated and tested) and the one yielding the best results is selected

'ANNtest...' - used to test the best ANN from each aforementioned parametric sub-analysis, aiming to find the best ANN model; this dataset includes the 'ANNdevelop...' counterpart

Where to find the input (independent) and target (dependent) variable values for each dataset/excel ?

input values in 'IN' sheet

target values in 'TARGET' sheet

Where to find the results from the best ANN model (for each target/output variable and each velocity range)?

open the corresponding excel file and the expected (target) vs ANN (output) results are written in 'TARGET vs OUTPUT' sheet

Check reference below (to be added when the paper is published)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328849817_11_Neural_Networks_-_Max_Disp_-_Railway_Beams

Excel spreadsheets by species (4 letter code is abbreviation for genus and species used in study, year 2010 or 2011 is year data collected, SH indicates data for Science Hub, date is date of file preparation). The data in a file are described in a read me file which is the first worksheet in each file. Each row in a species spreadsheet is for one plot (plant). The data themselves are in the data worksheet. One file includes a read me description of the column in the date set for chemical analysis. In this file one row is an herbicide treatment and sample for chemical analysis (if taken). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Olszyk , D., T. Pfleeger, T. Shiroyama, M. Blakely-Smith, E. Lee , and M. Plocher. Plant reproduction is altered by simulated herbicide drift toconstructed plant communities. ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA, 36(10): 2799-2813, (2017).