GENERAL INFORMATION

Title of Dataset: A dataset from a survey investigating disciplinary differences in data citation

Date of data collection: January to March 2022

Collection instrument: SurveyMonkey

Funding: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION

Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: These data are available under a CC BY 4.0 license

Links to publications that cite or use the data:

Gregory, K., Ninkov, A., Ripp, C., Peters, I., & Haustein, S. (2022). Surveying practices of data citation and reuse across disciplines. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Granada, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6951437

Gregory, K., Ninkov, A., Ripp, C., Roblin, E., Peters, I., & Haustein, S. (2023). Tracing data: A survey investigating disciplinary differences in data citation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7555266

DATA & FILE OVERVIEW

File List

Filename: MDCDatacitationReuse2021Codebookv2.pdf Codebook

Filename: MDCDataCitationReuse2021surveydatav2.csv Dataset format in csv

Filename: MDCDataCitationReuse2021surveydatav2.sav Dataset format in SPSS

Filename: MDCDataCitationReuseSurvey2021QNR.pdf Questionnaire

Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: Open ended questions asked to respondents

METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Description of methods used for collection/generation of data:

The development of the questionnaire (Gregory et al., 2022) was centered around the creation of two main branches of questions for the primary groups of interest in our study: researchers that reuse data (33 questions in total) and researchers that do not reuse data (16 questions in total). The population of interest for this survey consists of researchers from all disciplines and countries, sampled from the corresponding authors of papers indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) between 2016 and 2020.

Received 3,632 responses, 2,509 of which were completed, representing a completion rate of 68.6%. Incomplete responses were excluded from the dataset. The final total contains 2,492 complete responses and an uncorrected response rate of 1.57%. Controlling for invalid emails, bounced emails and opt-outs (n=5,201) produced a response rate of 1.62%, similar to surveys using comparable recruitment methods (Gregory et al., 2020).

Methods for processing the data:

Results were downloaded from SurveyMonkey in CSV format and were prepared for analysis using Excel and SPSS by recoding ordinal and multiple choice questions and by removing missing values.

Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data:

The dataset is provided in SPSS format, which requires IBM SPSS Statistics. The dataset is also available in a coded format in CSV. The Codebook is required to interpret to values.

DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: MDCDataCitationReuse2021surveydata

Number of variables: 95

Number of cases/rows: 2,492

Missing data codes: 999 Not asked

Refer to MDCDatacitationReuse2021Codebook.pdf for detailed variable information.

Transparency in data visualization is an essential ingredient for scientific communication. The traditional approach of visualizing continuous quantitative data solely in the form of summary statistics (i.e., measures of central tendency and dispersion) has repeatedly been criticized for not revealing the underlying raw data distribution. Remarkably, however, systematic and easy-to-use solutions for raw data visualization using the most commonly reported statistical software package for data analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics, are missing. Here, a comprehensive collection of more than 100 SPSS syntax files and an SPSS dataset template is presented and made freely available that allow the creation of transparent graphs for one-sample designs, for one- and two-factorial between-subject designs, for selected one- and two-factorial within-subject designs as well as for selected two-factorial mixed designs and, with some creativity, even beyond (e.g., three-factorial mixed-designs). Depending on graph type (e.g., pure dot plot, box plot, and line plot), raw data can be displayed along with standard measures of central tendency (arithmetic mean and median) and dispersion (95% CI and SD). The free-to-use syntax can also be modified to match with individual needs. A variety of example applications of syntax are illustrated in a tutorial-like fashion along with fictitious datasets accompanying this contribution. The syntax collection is hoped to provide researchers, students, teachers, and others working with SPSS a valuable tool to move towards more transparency in data visualization.

This dataset originates from a series of experimental studies titled “Tough on People, Tolerant to AI? Differential Effects of Human vs. AI Unfairness on Trust” The project investigates how individuals respond to unfair behavior (distributive, procedural, and interactional unfairness) enacted by artificial intelligence versus human agents, and how such behavior affects cognitive and affective trust.1 Experiment 1a: The Impact of AI vs. Human Distributive Unfairness on TrustOverview: This dataset comes from an experimental study aimed at examining how individuals respond in terms of cognitive and affective trust when distributive unfairness is enacted by either an artificial intelligence (AI) agent or a human decision-maker. Experiment 1a specifically focuses on the main effect of the “type of decision-maker” on trust.Data Generation and Processing: The data were collected through Credamo, an online survey platform. Initially, 98 responses were gathered from students at a university in China. Additional student participants were recruited via Credamo to supplement the sample. Attention check items were embedded in the questionnaire, and participants who failed were automatically excluded in real-time. Data collection continued until 202 valid responses were obtained. SPSS software was used for data cleaning and analysis.Data Structure and Format: The data file is named “Experiment1a.sav” and is in SPSS format. It contains 28 columns and 202 rows, where each row corresponds to one participant. Columns represent measured variables, including: grouping and randomization variables, one manipulation check item, four items measuring distributive fairness perception, six items on cognitive trust, five items on affective trust, three items for honesty checks, and four demographic variables (gender, age, education, and grade level). The final three columns contain computed means for distributive fairness, cognitive trust, and affective trust.Additional Information: No missing data are present. All variable names are labeled in English abbreviations to facilitate further analysis. The dataset can be directly opened in SPSS or exported to other formats.2 Experiment 1b: The Mediating Role of Perceived Ability and Benevolence (Distributive Unfairness)Overview: This dataset originates from an experimental study designed to replicate the findings of Experiment 1a and further examine the potential mediating role of perceived ability and perceived benevolence.Data Generation and Processing: Participants were recruited via the Credamo online platform. Attention check items were embedded in the survey to ensure data quality. Data were collected using a rolling recruitment method, with invalid responses removed in real time. A total of 228 valid responses were obtained.Data Structure and Format: The dataset is stored in a file named Experiment1b.sav in SPSS format and can be directly opened in SPSS software. It consists of 228 rows and 40 columns. Each row represents one participant’s data record, and each column corresponds to a different measured variable. Specifically, the dataset includes: random assignment and grouping variables; one manipulation check item; four items measuring perceived distributive fairness; six items on perceived ability; five items on perceived benevolence; six items on cognitive trust; five items on affective trust; three items for attention check; and three demographic variables (gender, age, and education). The last five columns contain the computed mean scores for perceived distributive fairness, ability, benevolence, cognitive trust, and affective trust.Additional Notes: There are no missing values in the dataset. All variables are labeled using standardized English abbreviations to facilitate reuse and secondary analysis. The file can be analyzed directly in SPSS or exported to other formats as needed.3 Experiment 2a: Differential Effects of AI vs. Human Procedural Unfairness on TrustOverview: This dataset originates from an experimental study aimed at examining whether individuals respond differently in terms of cognitive and affective trust when procedural unfairness is enacted by artificial intelligence versus human decision-makers. Experiment 2a focuses on the main effect of the decision agent on trust outcomes.Data Generation and Processing: Participants were recruited via the Credamo online survey platform from two universities located in different regions of China. A total of 227 responses were collected. After excluding those who failed the attention check items, 204 valid responses were retained for analysis. Data were processed and analyzed using SPSS software.Data Structure and Format: The dataset is stored in a file named Experiment2a.sav in SPSS format and can be directly opened in SPSS software. It contains 204 rows and 30 columns. Each row represents one participant’s response record, while each column corresponds to a specific variable. Variables include: random assignment and grouping; one manipulation check item; seven items measuring perceived procedural fairness; six items on cognitive trust; five items on affective trust; three attention check items; and three demographic variables (gender, age, and education). The final three columns contain computed average scores for procedural fairness, cognitive trust, and affective trust.Additional Notes: The dataset contains no missing values. All variables are labeled using standardized English abbreviations to facilitate reuse and secondary analysis. The file can be directly analyzed in SPSS or exported to other formats as needed.4 Experiment 2b: Mediating Role of Perceived Ability and Benevolence (Procedural Unfairness)Overview: This dataset comes from an experimental study designed to replicate the findings of Experiment 2a and to further examine the potential mediating roles of perceived ability and perceived benevolence in shaping trust responses under procedural unfairness.Data Generation and Processing: Participants were working adults recruited through the Credamo online platform. A rolling data collection strategy was used, where responses failing attention checks were excluded in real time. The final dataset includes 235 valid responses. All data were processed and analyzed using SPSS software.Data Structure and Format: The dataset is stored in a file named Experiment2b.sav, which is in SPSS format and can be directly opened using SPSS software. It contains 235 rows and 43 columns. Each row corresponds to a single participant, and each column represents a specific measured variable. These include: random assignment and group labels; one manipulation check item; seven items measuring procedural fairness; six items for perceived ability; five items for perceived benevolence; six items for cognitive trust; five items for affective trust; three attention check items; and three demographic variables (gender, age, education). The final five columns contain the computed average scores for procedural fairness, perceived ability, perceived benevolence, cognitive trust, and affective trust.Additional Notes: There are no missing values in the dataset. All variables are labeled using standardized English abbreviations to support future reuse and secondary analysis. The dataset can be directly analyzed in SPSS and easily converted into other formats if needed.5 Experiment 3a: Effects of AI vs. Human Interactional Unfairness on TrustOverview: This dataset comes from an experimental study that investigates how interactional unfairness, when enacted by either artificial intelligence or human decision-makers, influences individuals’ cognitive and affective trust. Experiment 3a focuses on the main effect of the “decision-maker type” under interactional unfairness conditions.Data Generation and Processing: Participants were college students recruited from two universities in different regions of China through the Credamo survey platform. After excluding responses that failed attention checks, a total of 203 valid cases were retained from an initial pool of 223 responses. All data were processed and analyzed using SPSS software.Data Structure and Format: The dataset is stored in the file named Experiment3a.sav, in SPSS format and compatible with SPSS software. It contains 203 rows and 27 columns. Each row represents a single participant, while each column corresponds to a specific measured variable. These include: random assignment and condition labels; one manipulation check item; four items measuring interactional fairness perception; six items for cognitive trust; five items for affective trust; three attention check items; and three demographic variables (gender, age, education). The final three columns contain computed average scores for interactional fairness, cognitive trust, and affective trust.Additional Notes: There are no missing values in the dataset. All variable names are provided using standardized English abbreviations to facilitate secondary analysis. The data can be directly analyzed using SPSS and exported to other formats as needed.6 Experiment 3b: The Mediating Role of Perceived Ability and Benevolence (Interactional Unfairness)Overview: This dataset comes from an experimental study designed to replicate the findings of Experiment 3a and further examine the potential mediating roles of perceived ability and perceived benevolence under conditions of interactional unfairness.Data Generation and Processing: Participants were working adults recruited via the Credamo platform. Attention check questions were embedded in the survey, and responses that failed these checks were excluded in real time. Data collection proceeded in a rolling manner until a total of 227 valid responses were obtained. All data were processed and analyzed using SPSS software.Data Structure and Format: The dataset is stored in the file named Experiment3b.sav, in SPSS format and compatible with SPSS software. It includes 227 rows and

Data from: Doctoral dissertation; Preprint article entitled: Managers' and physicians’ perception of palm vein technology adoption in the healthcare industry. Formats of the files associated with dataset: CSV; SAV. SPSS setup files can be used to generate native SPSS file formats such as SPSS system files and SPSS portable files. SPSS setup files generally include the following SPSS sections: DATA LIST: Assigns the name, type, decimal specification (if any), and specifies the beginning and ending column locations for each variable in the data file. Users must replace the "physical-filename" with host computer-specific input file specifications. For example, users on Windows platforms should replace "physical-filename" with "C:\06512-0001-Data.txt" for the data file named "06512-0001-Data.txt" located on the root directory "C:". VARIABLE LABELS: Assigns descriptive labels to all variables. Variable labels and variable names may be identical for some variables. VALUE LABELS: Assigns descriptive labels to codes in the data file. Not all variables necessarily have assigned value labels. MISSING VALUES: Declares user-defined missing values. Not all variables in the data file necessarily have user-defined missing values. These values can be treated specially in data transformations, statistical calculations, and case selection. MISSING VALUE RECODE: Sets user-defined numeric missing values to missing as interpreted by the SPSS system. Only variables with user-defined missing values are included in the statements. ABSTRACT: The purpose of the article is to examine the factors that influence the adoption of palm vein technology by considering the healthcare managers’ and physicians’ perception, using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology theoretical foundation. A quantitative approach was used for this study through which an exploratory research design was utilized. A cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to responders who were managers and physicians in the healthcare industry and who had previous experience with palm vein technology. The perceived factors tested for correlation with adoption were perceived usefulness, complexity, security, peer influence, and relative advantage. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to test the correlation between the perceived factors and palm vein technology. The results showed that perceived usefulness, security, and peer influence are important factors for adoption. Study limitations included purposive sampling from a single industry (healthcare) and limited literature was available with regard to managers’ and physicians’ perception of palm vein technology adoption in the healthcare industry. Researchers could focus on an examination of the impact of mediating variables on palm vein technology adoption in future studies. The study offers managers insight into the important factors that need to be considered in adopting palm vein technology. With biometric technology becoming pervasive, the study seeks to provide managers with the insight in managing the adoption of palm vein technology. KEYWORDS: biometrics, human identification, image recognition, palm vein authentication, technology adoption, user acceptance, palm vein technology

The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) software market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing adoption across diverse sectors like education, healthcare, and the social sciences. The market's expansion is fueled by the need for sophisticated statistical analysis to understand complex relationships between variables. Researchers and analysts increasingly rely on SEM to test theoretical models, assess causal relationships, and gain deeper insights from intricate datasets. While the specific market size for 2025 isn't provided, a reasonable estimate, considering the growth in data analytics and the increasing complexity of research questions, places the market value at approximately $500 million. A Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 8% seems plausible, reflecting steady but not explosive growth within a niche but essential software market. This CAGR anticipates continued demand from academia, government agencies, and market research firms. The market is segmented by software type (commercial and open-source) and application (education, medical, psychological, economic, and other fields). Commercial software dominates the market currently, due to its advanced features and professional support, however the open-source segment shows strong potential for growth, particularly within academic settings and amongst researchers with limited budgets. The competitive landscape is relatively concentrated with established players like LISREL, IBM SPSS Amos, and Mplus offering comprehensive solutions. However, the emergence of Python-based packages like semopy and lavaan demonstrates an ongoing shift towards flexible and programmable SEM software, potentially increasing market competition and innovation in the years to come. Geographic distribution shows North America and Europe currently holding the largest market share, with Asia-Pacific emerging as a key growth region due to increasing research funding and investment in data science capabilities. The sustained growth of the SEM software market is expected to continue throughout the forecast period (2025-2033), largely driven by the rising adoption of advanced analytical techniques within research and businesses. Factors limiting market growth include the high cost of commercial software, the steep learning curve associated with SEM techniques, and the availability of alternative statistical methods. However, increased user-friendliness of software interfaces, alongside the growing availability of online training and resources, are expected to mitigate these restraints and expand the market's reach to a broader audience. Continued innovation in SEM software, focusing on improved usability and incorporation of advanced features such as handling of missing data and multilevel modeling, will contribute significantly to the market's future trajectory. The development of cloud-based solutions and seamless integration with other analytical tools will also drive future market growth.

Background and purposeHydrocephalus is a frequent complication following subarachnoid hemorrhage. Few studies investigated the association between laboratory parameters and shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. This study aimed to investigate the variations of laboratory parameters after subarachnoid hemorrhage. We also attempted to identify predictive laboratory parameters for shunt-dependent hydrocephalus.MethodsMultiple imputation was performed to fill the missing laboratory data using Bayesian methods in SPSS. We used univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses to calculate hazard ratios for shunt-dependent hydrocephalus based on clinical and laboratory factors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the laboratory risk values predicting shunt-dependent hydrocephalus.ResultsWe included 181 participants with a mean age of 54.4 years. Higher sodium (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–2.07; p = 0.005), lower potassium, and higher glucose levels were associated with higher shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the areas under the curve of sodium, potassium, and glucose were 0.649 (cutoff value, 142.75 mEq/L), 0.609 (cutoff value, 3.04 mmol/L), and 0.664 (cutoff value, 140.51 mg/dL), respectively.ConclusionsDespite the exploratory nature of this study, we found that higher sodium, lower potassium, and higher glucose levels were predictive values for shunt-dependent hydrocephalus from postoperative day (POD) 1 to POD 12–16 after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Strict correction of electrolyte imbalance seems necessary to reduce shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. Further large studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Abstract (en): The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All federal court cases in the United States in 2002. Smallest Geographic Unit: county 2015-09-18 Six data files were created with docket numbers blanked for Parts 1, 3, and 5, and with docket numbers containing original values for Parts 2, 4, and 6.2012-06-26 All parts are being moved to restricted access and will be available only using the restricted access procedures.2005-04-29 Data files for Part 3, Criminal Data, 2002, Part 4, Civil Pending Data, 2002, and a Civil Pending Restricted Data, 2002 file have been added to the data collection along with corresponding SAS and SPSS setup files and codebooks in PDF formats.2005-01-07 A restricted data file for Part 1, Civil Terminations, 2002, has been added to the data collection. The public use data file for Part 1 and its corresponding SAS and SPSS setup files have been updated. The codebook has been modified to reflect these changes. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. record abstractsStarting with the year 2001, each year of data for Federal Court Cases is released by ICPSR as a separate study number. Federal Court Cases data for the years 1970-2000 can be found in FEDERAL COURT CASES: INTEGRATED DATA BASE, 1970-2000 (ICPSR 8429).

This bundle contains supplementary materials for an upcoming academic publication Do Agile Scaling Approaches Make A Difference? An Empirical Comparison of Team Effectiveness Across Popular Scaling Approaches?, by Christiaan Verwijs and Daniel Russo. Included in the bundle are the dataset and SPSS syntaxes. This replication package is made available by C. Verwijs under a "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 4.0 International"-license (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0).

About the dataset

The dataset (SPSS) contains anonymized response data from 15,078 team members aggregated into 4,013 Agile teams that participated from scrumteamsurvey.org. Stakeholder evaluations of 1,841 stakeholders were also collected for 529 of those teams. Data was gathered between September 2021, and September 2023. We cleaned the individual response data from careless responses and removed all data that could potentially identify teams, individuals, or their parent organizations. Because we wanted to analyze our measures at the team level, we calculated a team-level mean for each item in the survey. Such aggregation is only justified when at least 10% of the variance exists at the team level (Hair, 2019), which was the case (ICC = 35-50%). No data was missing at the team level.

Question labels and option labels are provided separately in Questions.csv. To conform to the privacy statement of scrumteamsurvey.org, the bundle does not include response data from before the team-level aggregation.

About the SPSS syntaxes

The bundle includes the syntaxes we used to prepare the dataset from the raw import, as well as the syntax we used to generate descriptives. This is mostly there for other researchers to verify our procedure.

This bundle contains supplementary materials for an upcoming academic publication A Theory of Scrum Team Effectiveness, by Christiaan Verwijs and Daniel Russo. Included in the bundle are the dataset, SPSS syntaxes, and model definitions (AMOS). This replication package is made available by C. Verwijs under a "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 4.0 International"-license (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0).

About the dataset

The dataset (SPSS) contains anonymized response data from 4.940 respondents from 1.978 Scrum Teams that participated from the https://scrumteamsurvey.org. Data was gathered between June 3, 2020, and October 13, 2021. We cleaned the individual response data from careless responses and removed all data that could potentially identify teams, individuals, or their parent organizations. Because we wanted to analyze our measures at the team level, we calculated a team level mean for each item in the survey. Such aggregation is only justified when at least 10% of the variance exists at the team level (Hair, 2019), which was the case (ICC = 51%). Because the percentage of missing data was modest, and to prevent list-wise deletion of cases and lose information, we performed EM maximum likelihood imputation in SPSS.

The dataset contains question labels and answer option definitions. To conform to the privacy statement of scrumteamsurvey.org, the bundle does not include individual response data from before the team-level aggregation.

About the model definitions

The bundle includes definitions for Structural Equation Models (SEM) for AMOS. We added the four iterations of the measurement model, four models used to perform a test for common method bias, the final path model, and the model used for mediation testing. Mediation testing was performed with the procedure outlined by Podsakoff (2003). Mediation testing was performed with the "Indirect Effects" plugin for AMOS by James Gaskin.

About the SPSS syntaxes

The bundle includes the syntaxes we used to prepare the dataset from the raw import, as well as the syntax we used to generate descriptives. This is mostly there for other researchers to verify our procedure.

Data source: Paper questionnaires were entered into epidata and exported as SPSS data (*.sav)Data processing: Chi-square test, one-way analysis of variance, repeated measurement analysis of variance, correlation and regression analysis were used in SPSS software. SEM model was built in AMOS software for mediation and moderation analysis.Data exclusion criteria: participants with a response rate lower than 90% were deleted.Missing-values procedures: Missing values for subsequent statistical analyses were imputed according to variable means.

This is an Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI) data project. The annotated article can be viewed on the Publisher's Website. Data Generation The research project engages a story about perceptions of fairness in criminal justice decisions. The specific focus involves a debate between ProPublica, a news organization, and Northpointe, the owner of a popular risk tool called COMPAS. ProPublica wrote that COMPAS was racist against blacks, while Northpointe posted online a reply rejecting such a finding. These two documents were the obvious foci of the qualitative analysis because of the further media attention they attracted, the confusion their competing conclusions caused readers, and the power both companies wield in public circles. There were no barriers to retrieval as both documents have been publicly available on their corporate websites. This public access was one of the motivators for choosing them as it meant that they were also easily attainable by the general public, thus extending the documents’ reach and impact. Additional materials from ProPublica relating to the main debate were also freely downloadable from its website and a third party, open source platform. Access to secondary source materials comprising additional writings from Northpointe representatives that could assist in understanding Northpointe’s main document, though, was more limited. Because of a claim of trade secrets on its tool and the underlying algorithm, it was more difficult to reach Northpointe’s other reports. Nonetheless, largely because its clients are governmental bodies with transparency and accountability obligations, some of Northpointe-associated reports were retrievable from third parties who had obtained them, largely through Freedom of Information Act queries. Together, the primary and (retrievable) secondary sources allowed for a triangulation of themes, arguments, and conclusions. The quantitative component uses a dataset of over 7,000 individuals with information that was collected and compiled by ProPublica and made available to the public on github. ProPublica’s gathering the data directly from criminal justice officials via Freedom of Information Act requests rendered the dataset in the public domain, and thus no confidentiality issues are present. The dataset was loaded into SPSS v. 25 for data analysis. Data Analysis The qualitative enquiry used critical discourse analysis, which investigates ways in which parties in their communications attempt to create, legitimate, rationalize, and control mutual understandings of important issues. Each of the two main discourse documents was parsed on its own merit. Yet the project was also intertextual in studying how the discourses correspond with each other and to other relevant writings by the same authors. Several more specific types of discursive strategies were of interest in attracting further critical examination: Testing claims and rationalizations that appear to serve the speaker’s self-interest Examining conclusions and determining whether sufficient evidence supported them Revealing contradictions and/or inconsistencies within the same text and intertextually Assessing strategies underlying justifications and rationalizations used to promote a party’s assertions and arguments Noticing strategic deployment of lexical phrasings, syntax, and rhetoric Judging sincerity of voice and the objective consideration of alternative perspectives Of equal importance in a critical discourse analysis is consideration of what is not addressed, that is to uncover facts and/or topics missing from the communication. For this project, this included parsing issues that were either briefly mentioned and then neglected, asserted yet the significance left unstated, or not suggested at all. This task required understanding common practices in the algorithmic data science literature. The paper could have been completed with just the critical discourse analysis. However, because one of the salient findings from it highlighted that the discourses overlooked numerous definitions of algorithmic fairness, the call to fill this gap seemed obvious. Then, the availability of the same dataset used by the parties in conflict, made this opportunity more appealing. Calculating additional algorithmic equity equations would not thereby be troubled by irregularities because of diverse sample sets. New variables were created as relevant to calculate algorithmic fairness equations. In addition to using various SPSS Analyze functions (e.g., regression, crosstabs, means), online statistical calculators were useful to compute z-test comparisons of proportions and t-test comparisons of means. Logic of Annotation Annotations were employed to fulfil a variety of functions, including supplementing the main text with context, observations, counter-points, analysis, and source attributions. These fall under a few categories. Space considerations. Critical discourse analysis offers a rich method...

Abstract (en): This study is part of a time-series collection of national surveys fielded continuously since 1952. The election studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, enduring political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. In addition to core items, new content includes questions on values, political knowledge, and attitudes on racial policy, as well as more general attitudes conceptualized as antecedent to these opinions on racial issues. The Main Data File also contains vote validation data that were expanded to include information from the appropriate election office and were attached to the records of each of the respondents in the post-election survey. The expanded data consist of the respondent's post case ID, vote validation ID, and two variables to clarify the distinction between the office of registration and the office associated with the respondent's sample address. The second data file, Bias Nonresponse Data File, contains respondent-level field administration variables. Of 3,833 lines of sample that were originally issued for the 1990 Study, 2,176 resulted in completed interviews, others were nonsample, and others were noninterviews for a variety of reasons. For each line of sample, the Bias Nonresponse Data File includes sampling data, result codes, control variables, and interviewer variables. Detailed geocode data are blanked but available under conditions of confidential access (contact the American National Election Studies at the Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, for further details). This is a specialized file, of particular interest to those who are interested in survey nonresponse. Demographic variables include age, party affiliation, marital status, education, employment status, occupation, religious preference, and ethnicity. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: The response rate for this study is 67.7 percent. The study was in the field until January 31, although 67 percent of the interviews were taken by November 25, 80 percent by December 7, and 93 percent by December 31. All United States households in the 50 states. National multistage area probability sample. 2015-11-10 The study metadata was updated.2009-01-09 YYYY-MM-DD Part 1, the Main Data File, incorporates errata that were posted separately under the Fourth ICPSR Edition. Part 2, the Bias Nonresponse Data File, has been added to the data collection, along with corresponding SAS, SPSS, and Stata setup files and documentation. The codebook has been updated by adding a technical memorandum on the sampling design of the study previously missing from the codebook. The nonresponse file contains respondent-level field administration variables for those interested in survey nonresponse. The collection now includes files in ASCII, SPSS portable, SAS transport (CPORT), and Stata system formats.2000-02-21 The data for this study are now available in SAS transport and SPSS export formats in addition to the ASCII data file. Variables in the dataset have been renumbered to the following format: 2-digit (or 2-character) year prefix + 4 digits + [optional] 1-character suffix. Dataset ID and version variables have also been added. Additionally, the Voter Validation Office Administration Interview File (Expanded Version) has been merged with the main data file, and the codebook and SPSS setup files have been replaced. Also, SAS setup files have been added to the collection, and the data collection instrument is now provided as a PDF file. Two files are no longer being released with this collection: the Voter Validation Office Administration Interview File (Unexpanded Version) and the Results of First Contact With Respondent file. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (SOC77-08885 and SES-8341310). face-to-face interviewThere was significantly more content in this post-election survey than ...

BackgroundIn sub-Saharan Africa countries including Ghana, the malaria burden remains unacceptably high and still a serious health challenge. Evaluating a community’s level of knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) regarding malaria is essential to enabling appropriate preventive and control measures. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge of malaria, attitudes toward the disease, and adoption of control and prevention practices in some communities across the Eastern Region of Ghana.MethodsA cross‑sectional based study was carried out in 13 communities across 8 districts from January -June, 2020. Complete data on socio-demographic characteristics and KAP were obtained from 316 randomly selected household respondents by a structured pre-tested questionnaire. Associations between KAP scores and socio-demographic profiles were tested by Chi-square and binary logistic regression. Data analysis was done with SPSS version 26.0.ResultsMost respondents (85.4%) had good knowledge score about malaria. Preferred choice of treatment seeking place (50.6%) was the health center/clinic. All respondents indicated they would seek treatment within 24 hours. Mosquito coils were the preferred choice (58.9%) against mosquito bites. Majority of households (58.5%) had no bed nets and bed net usage was poor (10.1%). Nearly half of the respondents (49.4%) had a positive attitude toward malaria and 40.5% showed good practices. Chi-square analysis showed significant associations for gender and attitude scores (p = 0.033), and educational status and practice scores (p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that 51–60 year-olds were less likely to have good knowledge (OR = 0.20, p = 0.04) than 15–20 year-olds. Respondents with complete basic schooling were less likely to have good knowledge (OR = 0.33, p = 0.04) than those with no formal schooling. A positive attitude was less likely in men (OR = 0.61, p = 0.04). Good malaria prevention practice was lower (OR = 0.30, p = 0.01) in participants with incomplete basic school education compared to those with no formal schooling.ConclusionOverall scores for respondents’ knowledge, though good, was not reflected in attitudes and levels of practice regarding malaria control and prevention. Behavioral change communication, preferably on radio, should be aimed at attitudes and practice toward the disease.

The database contains the results of a survey, which has been conducted three times between April 2017 and November 2017. The sample size of the database was 1.969, this number has decreased to 1.616 after ruling out missing values and not completed questionnaire responses. The survey was first carried out in a farmer’s market (N=394), then, addressed to the Spanish biggest consumer association members (N=422) and finally, addressed to general public through a random telephone survey (N=1.153).

Data is provided raw before the analysis with SPSS.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

As the UK went into the first lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team behind the biggest social survey in the UK, Understanding Society (UKHLS), developed a way to capture these experiences. From April 2020, participants from this Study were asked to take part in the Understanding Society COVID-19 survey, henceforth referred to as the COVID-19 survey or the COVID-19 study.

The COVID-19 survey regularly asked people about their situation and experiences. The resulting data gives a unique insight into the impact of the pandemic on individuals, families, and communities. The COVID-19 Teaching Dataset contains data from the main COVID-19 survey in a simplified form. It covers topics such as

• Socio-demographics
• Whether working at home and home-schooling
• COVID symptoms
• Health and well-being
• Social contact and neighbourhood cohesion
• Volunteering

The resource contains two data files:

• Cross-sectional: contains data collected in Wave 4 in July 2020 (with some additional variables from other waves);
• Longitudinal: Contains mainly data from Waves 1, 4 and 9 with key variables measured at three time points.

Key features of the dataset

• Missing values: in the web survey, participants clicking "Next" but not answering a question were given further options such as "Don't know" and "Prefer not to say". Missing observations like these are recorded using negative values such as -1 for "Don't know". In many instances, users of the data will need to set these values as missing. The User Guide includes Stata and SPSS code for setting negative missing values to system missing.

• The Longitudinal file is a balanced panel and is in wide format. A balanced panel means it only includes participants that took part in every wave. In wide format, each participant has one row of information, and each measurement of the same variable is a different variable.

• Weights: both the cross-sectional and longitudinal files include survey weights that adjust the sample to represent the UK adult population. The cross-sectional weight (betaindin_xw) adjusts for unequal selection probabilities in the sample design and for non-response. The longitudinal weight (ci_betaindin_lw) adjusts for the sample design and also for the fact that not all those invited to participate in the survey, do participate in all waves.

• Both the cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets include the survey design variables (psu and strata).

A full list of variables in both files can be found in the User Guide appendix.

Who is in the sample?

All adults (16 years old and over as of April 2020), in households who had participated in at least one of the last two waves of the main study Understanding Society, were invited to participate in this survey. From the September 2020 (Wave 5) survey onwards, only sample members who had completed at least one partial interview in any of the first four web surveys were invited to participate. From the November 2020 (Wave 6) survey onwards, those who had only completed the initial survey in April 2020 and none since, were no longer invited to participate

The User guide accompanying the data adds to the information here and includes a full variable list with details of measurement levels and links to the relevant questionnaire.

• Socio-demographics;
• Whether working at home and home-schooling;
• COVID symptoms;
• Health and well-being;
• Social contact and neighbourhood cohesion;
• Volunteering.

This bundle contains supplementary materials for an upcoming academic publication The Double-Edged Sword Of Diversity: How Diversity, Conflict, and Psychological Safety Impacts Software Teams, by Christiaan Verwijs and Daniel Russo. Included in the bundle are the dataset, SPSS syntaxes, and model definitions (AMOS). This replication package is made available by C. Verwijs under a "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 4.0 International"-license (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0).

About the dataset

The dataset (SPSS) contains anonymized response data from 1.118 respondents aggregated into 161 (Agile) software teams that participated from the https://scrumteamsurvey.org. Data was gathered between September 2021, and January 2022. We cleaned the individual response data from careless responses and removed all data that could potentially identify teams, individuals, or their parent organizations. Because we wanted to analyze our measures at the team level, we calculated a team-level mean for each item in the survey. Such aggregation is only justified when at least 10% of the variance exists at the team level (Hair, 2019), which was the case (ICC = 35-45%). No data was missing on the team level.

The dataset contains question labels and answer option definitions. To conform to the privacy statement of [scrumteamsurvey.org](https://scrumteamsurvey.org), the bundle does not include response data from before the team-level aggregation.

About the model definitions

The bundle includes definitions for Structural Equation Models (SEM) for AMOS. We added the iterations of the measurement model, four models used to perform a test for common method bias, and the path model that includes interactions. Indirect effects were calculated with the "Indirect Effects" plugin for AMOS by James Gaskin.

About the SPSS syntaxes

The bundle includes the syntaxes we used to prepare the dataset from the raw import, as well as the syntax we used to generate descriptives. This is mostly there for other researchers to verify our procedure.

Version 5 release notes:
Removes support for SPSS and Excel data.Changes the crimes that are stored in each file. There are more files now with fewer crimes per file. The files and their included crimes have been updated below.
Adds in agencies that report 0 months of the year.Adds a column that indicates the number of months reported. This is generated summing up the number of unique months an agency reports data for. Note that this indicates the number of months an agency reported arrests for ANY crime. They may not necessarily report every crime every month. Agencies that did not report a crime with have a value of NA for every arrest column for that crime.Removes data on runaways.
Version 4 release notes:
Changes column names from "poss_coke" and "sale_coke" to "poss_heroin_coke" and "sale_heroin_coke" to clearly indicate that these column includes the sale of heroin as well as similar opiates such as morphine, codeine, and opium. Also changes column names for the narcotic columns to indicate that they are only for synthetic narcotics.
Version 3 release notes:
Add data for 2016.Order rows by year (descending) and ORI.Version 2 release notes:
Fix bug where Philadelphia Police Department had incorrect FIPS county code.
The Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race data is an FBI data set that is part of the annual Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data. This data contains highly granular data on the number of people arrested for a variety of crimes (see below for a full list of included crimes). The data sets here combine data from the years 1980-2015 into a single file. These files are quite large and may take some time to load.
All the data was downloaded from NACJD as ASCII+SPSS Setup files and read into R using the package asciiSetupReader. All work to clean the data and save it in various file formats was also done in R. For the R code used to clean this data, see here. https://github.com/jacobkap/crime_data. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions please contact me at jkkaplan6@gmail.com.

I did not make any changes to the data other than the following. When an arrest column has a value of "None/not reported", I change that value to zero. This makes the (possible incorrect) assumption that these values represent zero crimes reported. The original data does not have a value when the agency reports zero arrests other than "None/not reported." In other words, this data does not differentiate between real zeros and missing values. Some agencies also incorrectly report the following numbers of arrests which I change to NA: 10000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 99999, 99998.

To reduce file size and make the data more manageable, all of the data is aggregated yearly. All of the data is in agency-year units such that every row indicates an agency in a given year. Columns are crime-arrest category units. For example, If you choose the data set that includes murder, you would have rows for each agency-year and columns with the number of people arrests for murder. The ASR data breaks down arrests by age and gender (e.g. Male aged 15, Male aged 18). They also provide the number of adults or juveniles arrested by race. Because most agencies and years do not report the arrestee's ethnicity (Hispanic or not Hispanic) or juvenile outcomes (e.g. referred to adult court, referred to welfare agency), I do not include these columns.

To make it easier to merge with other data, I merged this data with the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk (LEAIC) data. The data from the LEAIC add FIPS (state, county, and place) and agency type/subtype. Please note that some of the FIPS codes have leading zeros and if you open it in Excel it will automatically delete those leading zeros.

I created 9 arrest categories myself. The categories are:
Total Male JuvenileTotal Female JuvenileTotal Male AdultTotal Female AdultTotal MaleTotal FemaleTotal JuvenileTotal AdultTotal ArrestsAll of these categories are based on the sums of the sex-age categories (e.g. Male under 10, Female aged 22) rather than using the provided age-race categories (e.g. adult Black, juvenile Asian). As not all agencies report the race data, my method is more accurate. These categories also make up the data in the "simple" version of the data. The "simple" file only includes the above 9 columns as the arrest data (all other columns in the data are just agency identifier columns). Because this "simple" data set need fewer columns, I include all offenses.

As the arrest data is very granular, and each category of arrest is its own column, there are dozens of columns per crime. To keep the data somewhat manageable, there are nine different files, eight which contain different crimes and the "simple" file. Each file contains the data for all years. The eight categories each have crimes belonging to a major crime category and do not overlap in crimes other than with the index offenses. Please note that the crime names provided below are not the same as the column names in the data. Due to Stata limiting column names to 32 characters maximum, I have abbreviated the crime names in the data. The files and their included crimes are:

Index Crimes
MurderRapeRobberyAggravated AssaultBurglaryTheftMotor Vehicle TheftArsonAlcohol CrimesDUIDrunkenness
LiquorDrug CrimesTotal DrugTotal Drug SalesTotal Drug PossessionCannabis PossessionCannabis SalesHeroin or Cocaine PossessionHeroin or Cocaine SalesOther Drug PossessionOther Drug SalesSynthetic Narcotic PossessionSynthetic Narcotic SalesGrey Collar and Property CrimesForgeryFraudStolen PropertyFinancial CrimesEmbezzlementTotal GamblingOther GamblingBookmakingNumbers LotterySex or Family CrimesOffenses Against the Family and Children
Other Sex Offenses
ProstitutionRapeViolent CrimesAggravated AssaultMurderNegligent ManslaughterRobberyWeapon Offenses
Other CrimesCurfewDisorderly ConductOther Non-trafficSuspicion
VandalismVagrancy
Simple
This data set has every crime and only the arrest categories that I created (see above).
If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions please contact me at jkkaplan6@gmail.com.

Abstract (en): This data collection contains information gathered in 1975 on attorneys in Chicago, Illinois. The purpose of this data collection was to describe and analyze the social organization of the legal profession in Chicago. Several major aspects of the legal profession were investigated: the organization of lawyers' work, the social stratification within the Chicago Bar Association, prestige within the profession, lawyers' personal values, career patterns and mobility, networks of association, and the "elites" within the profession. Specific questions elicited information on areas of law in which the respondents spent most of their time practicing, and the ethnicities, educational background, religion, political affiliation, bar association memberships, and sex of respondents' friends and colleagues. Other variables probe respondents' backgrounds, such as father's occupation, home town, law school from which the respondent graduated, religious and political affiliations, ethnicity, sex, and income. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.. A total of 13,823 attorneys in Chicago, Illinois, had law offices, were not retired, had graduated from law school more than one year previous to the study, and were listed in SULLIVAN'S LAW DICTIONARY FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1974-1975, and/or the MARTINDALE-HUBBELL LAW DICTIONARY. A stratified probability sample with simple random selection of elements within strata resulted in 1,024 attorneys. 2006-01-06 ICPSR created SAS, SPSS, and Stata setup files, a SAS transport file, an SPSS portable file, and a Stata system file containing variable locations, variable labels, and missing value specifications. The data were transformed from card image to LRECL format and the cases were ordered by sequence number. Variables 343 (Law School Attended), 349 (Religious Preference), 352 (Respondents Nationality), and 353 (Spouses Nationality) were recoded due to confidentiality concerns. Previously unreleased hardcopy documentation has been scanned and included with the codebook. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (SOC-77-24699). American Bar Foundation. Russell Sage Foundation. personal interview(1) Variables 343 (Law School Attended), 349 (Religious Preference), 352 (Respondents Nationality), and 353 (Spouses Nationality) were recoded due to confidentiality concerns. Values with counts less than 5 were collapsed into a "Recoded Other" (100) value. (2) ICPSR has assigned missing value designations according to the available documentation for this study. However, some continuous variables have high and low values that may fall out of a valid range. Users of the data should be aware of the possibility that these values may not be valid.

Abstract (en): The major focus of this Euro-Barometer is the respondent's knowledge of and attitudes toward the nations of the Third World. Topics covered include the culture and customs of these nations, the existence of poverty and hunger, and the respondent's opinions on how best to provide assistance to Third World countries. Individuals answered questions on social and political conditions as well as on the level of economic development in these countries. Additionally, respondents were asked to assess the state of relations between the respondent's country and various Third World nations. Another focus of this data collection concerns energy problems and resources in the countries of the European Economic Community. Respondents were asked to choose which regions of the world are considered to be reliable suppliers of fossil fuel for the future and to evaluate the risks that various industrial installations such as chemical and nuclear power plants pose to people living nearby. Respondents were also asked about solutions to the need for additional energy supplies in the future. Possible solutions included the development or continued development of nuclear power, the encouragement of research into producing renewable energy sources such as solar energy, and the conservation of energy. As in previous surveys in this series, respondents' attitudes toward the Community, life satisfaction, and social goals continued to be monitored. The survey also asked each individual to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the creation of a single common European market and whether they approved or disapproved of current efforts to unify western Europe. In addition, the respondent's political orientation, outlook for the future, and socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were probed. Please review the "Weighting Information" section located in the ICPSR codebook for this Eurobarometer study. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Persons aged 15 and over residing in the 12 member nations of the European Community: Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, and West Germany (including West Berlin). Smallest Geographic Unit: country Multistage probability samples and stratified quota samples. 2009-04-13 The data have been further processed by GESIS-ZA, and the codebook, questionnaire, and SPSS setup files have been updated. Also, SAS and Stata setup files, SPSS and Stata system files, a SAS transport (CPORT) file, and a tab-delimited ASCII data file have been added. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (SES 85-12100 and SES 88-09098). The original data collection was carried out by Faits et Opinions on request of the Commission of the European Communities.The GESIS-ZA study number for this collection is ZA1713, as it does not appear in the data.References to OSIRIS, card-image, and SPSS control cards in the ICPSR codebook for this study are no longer applicable as the data have not been provided in OSIRIS or card-image file formats.Please disregard any reference to column locations, width, or deck in the ICPSR codebook and questionnaire files as they are not applicable to the ICPSR-produced data file. Correct column locations and LRECL for the ICPSR-produced data file can be found in the SPSS and SAS setup files, and Stata dictionary file. The full-product suite of files produced by ICPSR have originated from an SPSS portable file provided by the data producer.Question numbering for Eurobarometer 28 is as follows: Q128-Q180, Q211-Q280, Q313-Q359, and Q60-Q80 (demographic questions). Some question numbers are intentionally skipped, however neither questions nor data are missing.For country-specific categories, filter information, and other remarks, please see the corresponding variable documentation in the ICPSR codebook.V465 (VOTE INTENTION - DENMARK): Danish respondents who declared for political party "Venstre" had been coded as falling into the missing value category during the raw data processing for Eurobarometer 28. The original coding for Eurobarome...

Abstract (en): The National Consortium for Assessing Drug Control Initiatives, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and coordinated by the Criminal Justice Statistics Association, collected drug offender processing data from eight states: Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia. The purpose of the project was to track adult drug offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final court disposition, regardless of whether the offender was released without trial, acquitted, or convicted. These data allow researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes drug offenders, to measure the changing volume of drug offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the drug offender population. For purposes of this project, a drug offender was defined as any person who had been charged with a felony drug offense. The data are structured into six segments pertaining to (1) record identification, (2) the offender (date of birth, sex, race, ethnic origin), (3) arrest information (date of arrest, age at arrest, arrest charge code), (4) prosecution information (filed offense code and level, prosecution disposition and date), (5) court disposition information (disposition offense and level, court disposition, final disposition date, final pleading, type of trial), and (6) sentencing information (sentence and sentence date, sentence minimum and maximum). Also included are elapsed time variables. The unit of analysis is the felony drug offender. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All convicted felons in Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia. 2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 11 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 10 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.1997-09-19 SAS data definition statements have been added to this collection, and the SPSS data definition states were updated. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.