Most studies in the life sciences and other disciplines involve generating and analyzing numerical data of some type as the foundation for scientific findings. Working with numerical data involves multiple challenges. These include reproducible data acquisition, appropriate data storage, computationally correct data analysis, appropriate reporting and presentation of the results, and suitable data interpretation.Finding and correcting mistakes when analyzing and interpreting data can be frustrating and time-consuming. Presenting or publishing incorrect results is embarrassing but not uncommon. Particular sources of errors are inappropriate use of statistical methods and incorrect interpretation of data by software. To detect mistakes as early as possible, one should frequently check intermediate and final results for plausibility. Clearly documenting how quantities and results were obtained facilitates correcting mistakes. Properly understanding data is indispensable for reaching well-founded conclusions from experimental results. Units are needed to make sense of numbers, and uncertainty should be estimated to know how meaningful results are. Descriptive statistics and significance testing are useful tools for interpreting numerical results if applied correctly. However, blindly trusting in computed numbers can also be misleading, so it is worth thinking about how data should be summarized quantitatively to properly answer the question at hand. Finally, a suitable form of presentation is needed so that the data can properly support the interpretation and findings. By additionally sharing the relevant data, others can access, understand, and ultimately make use of the results.These quick tips are intended to provide guidelines for correctly interpreting, efficiently analyzing, and presenting numerical data in a useful way.

The average environmental and occupational physiologist may find statistics are difficult to interpret and use since their formal training in statistics is limited. Unfortunately, poor statistical practices can generate erroneous or at least misleading results and distorts the evidence in the scientific literature. These problems are exacerbated when statistics are used as thoughtless ritual that is performed after the data are collected. The situation is worsened when statistics are then treated as strict judgements about the data (i.e., significant versus non-significant) without a thought given to how these statistics were calculated or their practical meaning. We propose that researchers should consider statistics at every step of the research process whether that be the designing of experiments, collecting data, analysing the data or disseminating the results. When statistics are considered as an integral part of the research process, from start to finish, several problematic practices can be mitigated. Further, proper practices in disseminating the results of a study can greatly improve the quality of the literature. Within this review, we have included a number of reminders and statistical questions researchers should answer throughout the scientific process. Rather than treat statistics as a strict rule following procedure we hope that readers will use this review to stimulate a discussion around their current practices and attempt to improve them. The code to reproduce all analyses and figures within the manuscript can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BQGDH.

This statistic shows the summarized percentage of companies, by industry, which reported that the gathering, analysis, and utilization of data had a high level of significance on decision-making, today and in five years, according to a 2016 survey conducted by PwC. As of 2016, ** percent of industrial manufacturing companies surveyed said that data played a highly significant role in decision-making.

In 2016, non-interpretive streamflow statistics were compiled for streamgages located throughout the Nation and stored in the StreamStatsDB database for use with StreamStats and other applications. Two previously published USGS computer programs that were designed to help calculate streamflow statistics were updated to better support StreamStats as part of this effort. These programs are named “GNWISQ” (Get National Water Information System Streamflow (Q) files) and “QSTATS” (Streamflow (Q) Statistics). Statistics for 20,438 streamgages that had 1 or more complete years of record during water years 1901 through 2015 were calculated from daily mean streamflow data; 19,415 of these streamgages were within the conterminous United States. About 89 percent of the 20,438 streamgages had 3 or more years of record, and 65 percent had 10 or more years of record. Drainage areas of the 20,438 streamgages ranged from 0.01 to 1,144,500 square miles. The magnitude of annual average streamflow yields (streamflow per square mile) for these streamgages varied by almost six orders of magnitude, from 0.000029 to 34 cubic feet per second per square mile. About 64 percent of these streamgages did not have any zero-flow days during their available period of record. The 18,122 streamgages with 3 or more years of record were included in the StreamStatsDB compilation so they would be available via the StreamStats interface for user-selected streamgages.

Compositional data, which is data consisting of fractions or probabilities, is common in many fields including ecology, economics, physical science and political science. If these data would otherwise be normally distributed, their spread can be conveniently represented by a multivariate normal distribution truncated to the non-negative space under a unit simplex. Here this distribution is called the simplex-truncated multivariate normal distribution. For calculations on truncated distributions, it is often useful to obtain rapid estimates of their integral, mean and covariance; these quantities characterising the truncated distribution will generally possess different values to the corresponding non-truncated distribution.

In the paper Adams, Matthew (2022) Integral, mean and covariance of the simplex-truncated multivariate normal distribution. PLoS One, 17(7), Article number: e0272014. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/233964/, three different approaches that can estimate the integral, mean and covariance of any simplex-truncated multivariate normal distribution are described and compared. These three approaches are (1) naive rejection sampling, (2) a method described by Gessner et al. that unifies subset simulation and the Holmes-Diaconis-Ross algorithm with an analytical version of elliptical slice sampling, and (3) a semi-analytical method that expresses the integral, mean and covariance in terms of integrals of hyperrectangularly-truncated multivariate normal distributions, the latter of which are readily computed in modern mathematical and statistical packages. Strong agreement is demonstrated between all three approaches, but the most computationally efficient approach depends strongly both on implementation details and the dimension of the simplex-truncated multivariate normal distribution.

This dataset consists of all code and results for the associated article.

Data in social and behavioral sciences are routinely collected using questionnaires, and each domain of interest is tapped by multiple indicators. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is one of the most widely used methods to analyze such data. However, conventional methods for SEM face difficulty when the number of variables (p) is large even when the sample size (N) is also rather large. This article addresses the issue of model inference with the likelihood ratio statistic Tml. Using the method of empirical modeling, mean-and-variance corrected statistics for SEM with many variables are developed. Results show that the new statistics not only perform much better than Tml but also are substantial improvements over other corrections to Tml. When combined with a robust transformation, the new statistics also perform well with non-normally distributed data.

LScDC Word-Category RIG MatrixApril 2020 by Neslihan Suzen, PhD student at the University of Leicester (ns433@leicester.ac.uk / suzenneslihan@hotmail.com)Supervised by Prof Alexander Gorban and Dr Evgeny MirkesGetting StartedThis file describes the Word-Category RIG Matrix for theLeicester Scientific Corpus (LSC) [1], the procedure to build the matrix and introduces the Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT) with the construction process. The Word-Category RIG Matrix is a 103,998 by 252 matrix, where rows correspond to words of Leicester Scientific Dictionary-Core (LScDC) [2] and columns correspond to 252 Web of Science (WoS) categories [3, 4, 5]. Each entry in the matrix corresponds to a pair (category,word). Its value for the pair shows the Relative Information Gain (RIG) on the belonging of a text from the LSC to the category from observing the word in this text. The CSV file of Word-Category RIG Matrix in the published archive is presented with two additional columns of the sum of RIGs in categories and the maximum of RIGs over categories (last two columns of the matrix). So, the file ‘Word-Category RIG Matrix.csv’ contains a total of 254 columns.This matrix is created to be used in future research on quantifying of meaning in scientific texts under the assumption that words have scientifically specific meanings in subject categories and the meaning can be estimated by information gains from word to categories. LScT (Leicester Scientific Thesaurus) is a scientific thesaurus of English. The thesaurus includes a list of 5,000 words from the LScDC. We consider ordering the words of LScDC by the sum of their RIGs in categories. That is, words are arranged in their informativeness in the scientific corpus LSC. Therefore, meaningfulness of words evaluated by words’ average informativeness in the categories. We have decided to include the most informative 5,000 words in the scientific thesaurus. Words as a Vector of Frequencies in WoS CategoriesEach word of the LScDC is represented as a vector of frequencies in WoS categories. Given the collection of the LSC texts, each entry of the vector consists of the number of texts containing the word in the corresponding category.It is noteworthy that texts in a corpus do not necessarily belong to a single category, as they are likely to correspond to multidisciplinary studies, specifically in a corpus of scientific texts. In other words, categories may not be exclusive. There are 252 WoS categories and a text can be assigned to at least 1 and at most 6 categories in the LSC. Using the binary calculation of frequencies, we introduce the presence of a word in a category. We create a vector of frequencies for each word, where dimensions are categories in the corpus.The collection of vectors, with all words and categories in the entire corpus, can be shown in a table, where each entry corresponds to a pair (word,category). This table is build for the LScDC with 252 WoS categories and presented in published archive with this file. The value of each entry in the table shows how many times a word of LScDC appears in a WoS category. The occurrence of a word in a category is determined by counting the number of the LSC texts containing the word in a category. Words as a Vector of Relative Information Gains Extracted for CategoriesIn this section, we introduce our approach to representation of a word as a vector of relative information gains for categories under the assumption that meaning of a word can be quantified by their information gained for categories.For each category, a function is defined on texts that takes the value 1, if the text belongs to the category, and 0 otherwise. For each word, a function is defined on texts that takes the value 1 if the word belongs to the text, and 0 otherwise. Consider LSC as a probabilistic sample space (the space of equally probable elementary outcomes). For the Boolean random variables, the joint probability distribution, the entropy and information gains are defined.The information gain about the category from the word is the amount of information on the belonging of a text from the LSC to the category from observing the word in the text [6]. We used the Relative Information Gain (RIG) providing a normalised measure of the Information Gain. This provides the ability of comparing information gains for different categories. The calculations of entropy, Information Gains and Relative Information Gains can be found in the README file in the archive published. Given a word, we created a vector where each component of the vector corresponds to a category. Therefore, each word is represented as a vector of relative information gains. It is obvious that the dimension of vector for each word is the number of categories. The set of vectors is used to form the Word-Category RIG Matrix, in which each column corresponds to a category, each row corresponds to a word and each component is the relative information gain from the word to the category. In Word-Category RIG Matrix, a row vector represents the corresponding word as a vector of RIGs in categories. We note that in the matrix, a column vector represents RIGs of all words in an individual category. If we choose an arbitrary category, words can be ordered by their RIGs from the most informative to the least informative for the category. As well as ordering words in each category, words can be ordered by two criteria: sum and maximum of RIGs in categories. The top n words in this list can be considered as the most informative words in the scientific texts. For a given word, the sum and maximum of RIGs are calculated from the Word-Category RIG Matrix.RIGs for each word of LScDC in 252 categories are calculated and vectors of words are formed. We then form the Word-Category RIG Matrix for the LSC. For each word, the sum (S) and maximum (M) of RIGs in categories are calculated and added at the end of the matrix (last two columns of the matrix). The Word-Category RIG Matrix for the LScDC with 252 categories, the sum of RIGs in categories and the maximum of RIGs over categories can be found in the database.Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT)Leicester Scientific Thesaurus (LScT) is a list of 5,000 words form the LScDC [2]. Words of LScDC are sorted in descending order by the sum (S) of RIGs in categories and the top 5,000 words are selected to be included in the LScT. We consider these 5,000 words as the most meaningful words in the scientific corpus. In other words, meaningfulness of words evaluated by words’ average informativeness in the categories and the list of these words are considered as a ‘thesaurus’ for science. The LScT with value of sum can be found as CSV file with the published archive. Published archive contains following files:1) Word_Category_RIG_Matrix.csv: A 103,998 by 254 matrix where columns are 252 WoS categories, the sum (S) and the maximum (M) of RIGs in categories (last two columns of the matrix), and rows are words of LScDC. Each entry in the first 252 columns is RIG from the word to the category. Words are ordered as in the LScDC.2) Word_Category_Frequency_Matrix.csv: A 103,998 by 252 matrix where columns are 252 WoS categories and rows are words of LScDC. Each entry of the matrix is the number of texts containing the word in the corresponding category. Words are ordered as in the LScDC.3) LScT.csv: List of words of LScT with sum (S) values. 4) Text_No_in_Cat.csv: The number of texts in categories. 5) Categories_in_Documents.csv: List of WoS categories for each document of the LSC.6) README.txt: Description of Word-Category RIG Matrix, Word-Category Frequency Matrix and LScT and forming procedures.7) README.pdf (same as 6 in PDF format)References[1] Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LSC (Leicester Scientific Corpus). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9449639.v2[2] Suzen, Neslihan (2019): LScDC (Leicester Scientific Dictionary-Core). figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25392/leicester.data.9896579.v3[3] Web of Science. (15 July). Available: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/[4] WoS Subject Categories. Available: https://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS56B5/help/WOS/hp_subject_category_terms_tasca.html [5] Suzen, N., Mirkes, E. M., & Gorban, A. N. (2019). LScDC-new large scientific dictionary. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06858. [6] Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.

turk-studies-summary.csv: Summarized results from three different lineup studies; each line describes aggregated results for a single lineup panel. - study: a string indicating the study the lineup panel was used in; turk4 is Hofmann et al (2012), turk10 is Loy et al. (2016), turk14 is Loy et al. (2017) - param: a string indicating the parameter settings (study specific) used to generate the lineup - test_param: a string indicating a (usually human readable) description of the lineup - pic_id: a numeric ID specific to the lineup - pic_name: the picture name (pictures aren't provided in this repository) - obs_plot_location: the panel of the lineup containing the data or target - response_no: the panel number of the lineup - n: the number of times the panel was selectedturk6_60_96_1_8.csv: the data necessary to generate the lineup provided in the example section of the paper - vals: the y-values used in boxplot construction - group: the group used to separate values into two boxplots - .sample: the panel the value is included in

Streamflow data and statistics are vitally important for proper protection and management of both the water quality and water quantity of Alabama streams. Such data and statistics are available at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations, also referred to as streamgages or stations, but are often needed at ungaged stream locations. To address this need, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with numerous Alabama state agencies and organizations, developed regional regression equations for estimating selected low-flow frequency statistics and mean annual flow for ungaged locations in Alabama that are not substantially affected by tides, regulation, diversions, or other anthropogenic influences. This data release comprises the geographic information systems (GIS) layers and tabular data used to create the new low-flow and mean annual flow regression equations and implement them for the U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats application (https://streamstats.usgs.gov).

We include a description of the data sets in the meta-data as well as sample code and results from a simulated data set. This dataset is not publicly accessible because: EPA cannot release personally identifiable information regarding living individuals, according to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This dataset contains information about human research subjects. Because there is potential to identify individual participants and disclose personal information, either alone or in combination with other datasets, individual level data are not appropriate to post for public access. Restricted access may be granted to authorized persons by contacting the party listed. It can be accessed through the following means: The R code is available on line here: https://github.com/warrenjl/SpGPCW. Format: Abstract The data used in the application section of the manuscript consist of geocoded birth records from the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, 2005-2008. In the simulation study section of the manuscript, we simulate synthetic data that closely match some of the key features of the birth certificate data while maintaining confidentiality of any actual pregnant women. Availability Due to the highly sensitive and identifying information contained in the birth certificate data (including latitude/longitude and address of residence at delivery), we are unable to make the data from the application section publicly available. However, we will make one of the simulated datasets available for any reader interested in applying the method to realistic simulated birth records data. This will also allow the user to become familiar with the required inputs of the model, how the data should be structured, and what type of output is obtained. While we cannot provide the application data here, access to the North Carolina birth records can be requested through the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics and requires an appropriate data use agreement. Description Permissions: These are simulated data without any identifying information or informative birth-level covariates. We also standardize the pollution exposures on each week by subtracting off the median exposure amount on a given week and dividing by the interquartile range (IQR) (as in the actual application to the true NC birth records data). The dataset that we provide includes weekly average pregnancy exposures that have already been standardized in this way while the medians and IQRs are not given. This further protects identifiability of the spatial locations used in the analysis. File format: R workspace file. Metadata (including data dictionary) • y: Vector of binary responses (1: preterm birth, 0: control) • x: Matrix of covariates; one row for each simulated individual • z: Matrix of standardized pollution exposures • n: Number of simulated individuals • m: Number of exposure time periods (e.g., weeks of pregnancy) • p: Number of columns in the covariate design matrix • alpha_true: Vector of “true” critical window locations/magnitudes (i.e., the ground truth that we want to estimate). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Warren, J., W. Kong, T. Luben, and H. Chang. Critical Window Variable Selection: Estimating the Impact of Air Pollution on Very Preterm Birth. Biostatistics. Oxford University Press, OXFORD, UK, 1-30, (2019).

Abstract

The Project for Statistics on Living standards and Development was a countrywide World Bank Living Standards Measurement Survey. It covered approximately 9000 households, drawn from a representative sample of South African households. The fieldwork was undertaken during the nine months leading up to the country's first democratic elections at the end of April 1994. The purpose of the survey was to collect statistical information about the conditions under which South Africans live in order to provide policymakers with the data necessary for planning strategies. This data would aid the implementation of goals such as those outlined in the Government of National Unity's Reconstruction and Development Programme.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

All Household members. Individuals in hospitals, old age homes, hotels and hostels of educational institutions were not included in the sample. Migrant labour hostels were included. In addition to those that turned up in the selected ESDs, a sample of three hostels was chosen from a national list provided by the Human Sciences Research Council and within each of these hostels a representative sample was drawn on a similar basis as described above for the households in ESDs.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

(a) SAMPLING DESIGN

Sample size is 9,000 households. The sample design adopted for the study was a two-stage self-weighting design in which the first stage units were Census Enumerator Subdistricts (ESDs, or their equivalent) and the second stage were households. The advantage of using such a design is that it provides a representative sample that need not be based on accurate census population distribution in the case of South Africa, the sample will automatically include many poor people, without the need to go beyond this and oversample the poor. Proportionate sampling as in such a self-weighting sample design offers the simplest possible data files for further analysis, as weights do not have to be added. However, in the end this advantage could not be retained, and weights had to be added.

(b) SAMPLE FRAME

The sampling frame was drawn up on the basis of small, clearly demarcated area units, each with a population estimate. The nature of the self-weighting procedure adopted ensured that this population estimate was not important for determining the final sample, however. For most of the country, census ESDs were used. Where some ESDs comprised relatively large populations as for instance in some black townships such as Soweto, aerial photographs were used to divide the areas into blocks of approximately equal population size. In other instances, particularly in some of the former homelands, the area units were not ESDs but villages or village groups. In the sample design chosen, the area stage units (generally ESDs) were selected with probability proportional to size, based on the census population. Systematic sampling was used throughout that is, sampling at fixed interval in a list of ESDs, starting at a randomly selected starting point. Given that sampling was self-weighting, the impact of stratification was expected to be modest. The main objective was to ensure that the racial and geographic breakdown approximated the national population distribution. This was done by listing the area stage units (ESDs) by statistical region and then within the statistical region by urban or rural. Within these sub-statistical regions, the ESDs were then listed in order of percentage African. The sampling interval for the selection of the ESDs was obtained by dividing the 1991 census population of 38,120,853 by the 300 clusters to be selected. This yielded 105,800. Starting at a randomly selected point, every 105,800th person down the cluster list was selected. This ensured both geographic and racial diversity (ESDs were ordered by statistical sub-region and proportion of the population African). In three or four instances, the ESD chosen was judged inaccessible and replaced with a similar one. In the second sampling stage the unit of analysis was the household. In each selected ESD a listing or enumeration of households was carried out by means of a field operation. From the households listed in an ESD a sample of households was selected by systematic sampling. Even though the ultimate enumeration unit was the household, in most cases "stands" were used as enumeration units. However, when a stand was chosen as the enumeration unit all households on that stand had to be interviewed.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

All the questionnaires were checked when received. Where information was incomplete or appeared contradictory, the questionnaire was sent back to the relevant survey organization. As soon as the data was available, it was captured using local development platform ADE. This was completed in February 1994. Following this, a series of exploratory programs were written to highlight inconsistencies and outlier. For example, all person level files were linked together to ensure that the same person code reported in different sections of the questionnaire corresponded to the same person. The error reports from these programs were compared to the questionnaires and the necessary alterations made. This was a lengthy process, as several files were checked more than once, and completed at the beginning of August 1994. In some cases, questionnaires would contain missing values, or comments that the respondent did not know, or refused to answer a question.

These responses are coded in the data files with the following values: VALUE MEANING -1 : The data was not available on the questionnaire or form -2 : The field is not applicable -3 : Respondent refused to answer -4 : Respondent did not know answer to question

Data appraisal

The data collected in clusters 217 and 218 should be viewed as highly unreliable and therefore removed from the data set. The data currently available on the web site has been revised to remove the data from these clusters. Researchers who have downloaded the data in the past should revise their data sets. For information on the data in those clusters, contact SALDRU http://www.saldru.uct.ac.za/.

The set of data contains statistical information on the work with the appeals of citizens of the State Service for Quality of Education of Ukraine. In particular, where the appeals came from, the number of appeals, the number of citizens who applied.

Uncorrelated data (A) and slightly noisy data following a clear nonmonotonic relationship (B) show poor CCs in all cases. A nonlinear but monotonic relationship (C) is captured by the Spearman CC but yields low Pearson CC. A linear relationship is characterized by high Pearson CC (D, E), but only a good agreement between the two data series (E) yields a high concordance CC.

Data for Figure 3.39 from Chapter 3 of the Working Group I (WGI) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Figure 3.39 shows the observed and simulated Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV). --------------------------------------------------- How to cite this dataset --------------------------------------------------- When citing this dataset, please include both the data citation below (under 'Citable as') and the following citation for the report component from which the figure originates: Eyring, V., N.P. Gillett, K.M. Achuta Rao, R. Barimalala, M. Barreiro Parrillo, N. Bellouin, C. Cassou, P.J. Durack, Y. Kosaka, S. McGregor, S. Min, O. Morgenstern, and Y. Sun, 2021: Human Influence on the Climate System. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 423–552, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.005. --------------------------------------------------- Figure subpanels --------------------------------------------------- The figure has six panels. Files are not separated according to the panels. --------------------------------------------------- List of data provided --------------------------------------------------- pdv.obs.nc contains - Observed SST anomalies associated with the PDV pattern - Observed PDV index time series (unfiltered) - Observed PDV index time series (low-pass filtered) - Taylor statistics of the observed PDV patterns - Statistical significance of the observed SST anomalies associated with the PDV pattern pdv.hist.cmip6.nc contains - Simulated SST anomalies associated with the PDV pattern - Simulated PDV index time series (unfiltered) - Simulated PDV index time series (low-pass filtered) - Taylor statistics of the simulated PDV patterns based on CMIP6 historical simulations. pdv.hist.cmip5.nc contains - Simulated SST anomalies associated with the PDV pattern - Simulated PDV index time series (unfiltered) - Simulated PDV index time series (low-pass filtered) - Taylor statistics of the simulated PDV patterns based on CMIP5 historical simulations. pdv.piControl.cmip6.nc contains - Simulated SST anomalies associated with the PDV pattern - Simulated PDV index time series (unfiltered) - Simulated PDV index time series (low-pass filtered) - Taylor statistics of the simulated PDV patterns based on CMIP6 piControl simulations. pdv.piControl.cmip5.nc contains - Simulated SST anomalies associated with the PDV pattern - Simulated PDV index time series (unfiltered) - Simulated PDV index time series (low-pass filtered) - Taylor statistics of the simulated PDV patterns based on CMIP5 piControl simulations. --------------------------------------------------- Data provided in relation to figure --------------------------------------------------- Panel a: - ipo_pattern_obs_ref in pdv.obs.nc: shading - ipo_pattern_obs_signif (dataset = 1) in pdv.obs.nc: cross markers Panel b: - Multimodel ensemble mean of ipo_model_pattern in pdv.hist.cmip6.nc: shading, with their sign agreement for hatching Panel c: - tay_stats (stat = 0, 1) in pdv.obs.nc: black dots - tay_stats (stat = 0, 1) in pdv.hist.cmip6.nc: red crosses, and their multimodel ensemble mean for the red dot - tay_stats (stat = 0, 1) in pdv.hist.cmip5.nc: blue crosses, and their multimodel ensemble mean for the blue dot Panel d: - Lag-1 autocorrelation of tpi in pdv.obs.nc: black horizontal lines in left . ERSSTv5: dataset = 1 . HadISST: dataset = 2 . COBE-SST2: dataset = 3 - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-1 autocorrelation of tpi in pdv.piControl.cmip5.nc: blue open box-whisker in the left - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-1 autocorrelation of tpi in pdv.piControl.cmip6.nc: red open box-whisker in the left - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-1 autocorrelation of tpi in pdv.hist.cmip5.nc: blue filled box-whisker in the left - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-1 autocorrelation of tpi in pdv.hist.cmip6.nc: red filled box-whisker in the left - Lag-10 autocorrelation of tpi_lp in pdv.obs.nc: black horizontal lines in right . ERSSTv5: dataset = 1 . HadISST: dataset = 2 . COBE-SST2: dataset = 3 - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-10 autocorrelation of tpi_lp in pdv.piControl.cmip5.nc: blue open box-whisker in the right - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-10 autocorrelation of tpi_lp in pdv.piControl.cmip6.nc: red open box-whisker in the right - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-10 autocorrelation of tpi_lp in pdv.hist.cmip5.nc: blue filled box-whisker in the right - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of lag-10 autocorrelation of tpi_lp in pdv.hist.cmip6.nc: red filled box-whisker in the right Panel e: - Standard deviation of tpi in pdv.obs.nc: black horizontal lines in left . ERSSTv5: dataset = 1 . HadISST: dataset = 2 . COBE-SST2: dataset = 3 - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi in pdv.piControl.cmip5.nc: blue open box-whisker in the left - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi in pdv.piControl.cmip6.nc: red open box-whisker in the left - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi in pdv.hist.cmip5.nc: blue filled box-whisker in the left - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi in pdv.hist.cmip6.nc: red filled box-whisker in the left - Standard deviation of tpi_lp in pdv.obs.nc: black horizontal lines in right . ERSSTv5: dataset = 1 . HadISST: dataset = 2 . COBE-SST2: dataset = 3 - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi_lp in pdv.piControl.cmip5.nc: blue open box-whisker in the right - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi_lp in pdv.piControl.cmip6.nc: red open box-whisker in the right - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi_lp in pdv.hist.cmip5.nc: blue filled box-whisker in the right - Multimodel ensemble mean and percentiles of standard deviation of tpi_lp in pdv.hist.cmip6.nc: red filled box-whisker in the right Panel f: - tpi_lp in pdv.obs.nc: black curves . ERSSTv5: dataset = 1 . HadISST: dataset = 2 . COBE-SST2: dataset = 3 - tpi_lp in pdv.hist.cmip6.nc: 5th-95th percentiles in red shading, multimodel ensemble mean and its 5-95% confidence interval for red curves - tpi_lp in pdv.hist.cmip5.nc: 5th-95th percentiles in blue shading, multimodel ensemble mean for blue curve CMIP5 is the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. CMIP6 is the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. SST stands for Sea Surface Temperature. --------------------------------------------------- Notes on reproducing the figure from the provided data --------------------------------------------------- Multimodel ensemble means and percentiles of historical simulations of CMIP5 and CMIP6 are calculated after weighting individual members with the inverse of the ensemble size of the same model. ensemble_assign in each file provides the model number to which each ensemble member belongs. This weighting does not apply to the sign agreement calculation. piControl simulations from CMIP5 and CMIP6 consist of a single member from each model, so the weighting is not applied. Multimodel ensemble means of the pattern correlation in Taylor statistics in (c) and the autocorrelation of the index in (d) are calculated via Fisher z-transformation and back transformation. --------------------------------------------------- Sources of additional information --------------------------------------------------- The following weblinks are provided in the Related Documents section of this catalogue record: - Link to the report component containing the figure (Chapter 3) - Link to the Supplementary Material for Chapter 3, which contains details on the input data used in Table 3.SM.1 - Link to the code for the figure, archived on Zenodo - Link to the figure on the IPCC AR6 website

This child item includes daily mean streamflow data obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System database (https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN) and subsequently used in the computation of streamflow statistics. Daily mean streamflow data for some streamgages were removed from the analyses if the daily streamflows were determined to be incorrect, estimated, or had other problems. Streamflow at each streamgage was assessed for degree of human alteration owing to dams and diversions before streamflow statistics were computed. Methods used to remove daily mean streamflows, assess alteration, and compute the summary statistics contained in this data release are described in an accompanying report (Armstrong and others, 2025). Daily mean streamflow data for the period of record at each USGS streamgage used in the analyses are grouped into 15 folders organized by the 4-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC; https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html) in which the streamgage is located. The content of these folders is described in this metadata file. A table describing characteristics of the streamgages used in the analyses is provided in text file "AtSite_Table1_StreamgageSummary.txt."

The set contains a list of norms of the state statistical observation of the executive committee of Bila Tserkva City Council