The Media Barometer (Mediebarometern) is an annual survey focusing on how the Swedish population between ages 9 and 79 uses media on traditional and digital platforms on an average day. The survey was first conducted in 1979 and has since been conducted every year.

The Media Barometer (Mediebarometern) is an annual survey focusing on how the Swedish population between ages 9 and 85 uses media on traditional and digital platforms on an average day. The Media Barometer (Mediebarometern) is an annual survey focusing on how the Swedish population between ages 9 and 85 uses media on traditional and digital platforms on an average day.

Associated data underlying the article

Rizun, Nina; Ciesielska, Magdalena; Alexopoulos, Charalampos; Saxena,Stuti; Papageorgiou, Georgios International Conference on Open Data (ICOD 2022): Book of abstracts, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, pp. 26-29 (978-953-270-167-8).

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8069910

It is everybody’s knowledge now that Open Government Data (OGD) pertains to the availability of datasets pertaining to government operations and functioning via license-free formats (Afful-Dadzie and Afful-Dadzie, 2017) and these datasets are linked with different themes contingent upon the area of administration like energy, education, climate, tourism, environment, infrastructure, etc. (Ubaldi, 2013). Governments have been benchmarking their OGD initiatives across standard indices like ODIN, OKFN, Open Data Barometer, etc. (Lnenicka et al., 2022; Lnenicka and Nikiforova, 2021) and ample research exists on assessing the quality of OGD portals from the demand (i.e. the governments’ efforts at maintaining the quality of datasets) and supply (i.e. the perceptions of users regarding the quality of datasets) side (Crusoe et al., 2019; de Souza et al., 2022; Islam et al., 2021; Kaasenbrood et al., 2015; Khurshid et al., 2022; Lnenicka et al., 2022; Purwanto et al., 2020; Saxena and Janssen, 2017; Shehata and Elgllab, 2021; Talukder et al., 2019; Weerakkody et al., 2017; Wirtz et al., 2016; Wirtz et al., 2018; Wirtz et al., 2019; Zuiderwijk et al., 2015). Given the magnitude of academic interest on OGD- especially in the last 10 years- it remains to be assessed as to how far has the domain progressed in the academic environs and surprisingly, no research has been conducted to elucidate the infusion of this very significant domain- that is relatable to the extent to which the governments are forwarding their claims regarding the furtherance of transparent and corruption-free administration apart from bolstering citizen participation, collaboration and trust (Gil-Garcia et al., 2020; Hellberg and Hedstrom, 2015) besides serving as a means for value creation and innovation by a range of stakeholders (Jetzek et al., 2012; Jetzek et al., 2014) - in the diverse platforms that are meant for furthering academic dialogue and discussion.

This dataset contains barometer underway data collected aboard the R/V Pelican cruise PE17-23 in the Gulf of Mexico from 2017-06-08 to 2017-06-16. Other related datasets are available under GRIIDC Unique Dataset Identifiers (UDIs): R4.x261.000:0028 (https://doi.org/10.7266/N7251GS7), R4.x261.000:0030 (https://doi.org/10.7266/n7-dbkx-vk59), and R4.x261.000:0031 (https://doi.org/10.7266/n7-f8yc-h222). These data are also available at the Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R) under dataset DOI https://doi.org/10.7284/127759, cruise DOI https://doi.org/10.7284/907750.

The barometer of the results of public action The barometer of the results of public action embodies a strong and unprecedented presidential commitment under the Fifth Republic: transparency of the results of public action. It also demonstrates the Government’s determination to improve the daily lives of citizens in each territory, to accelerate the implementation of reforms and to strengthen the evaluation of public action, through results and data steering. Accessible online on the website government.fr since January 2021, the barometer allows every citizen to monitor the actions of the Government, political by policy, territory by territory. See barometer of results of public action ### Structure of the barometer of results Nearly 30 government priority policies are published in the first version of the barometer, around 8 key themes of citizens’ daily lives: —Education — youth — Economy — employment — Ecological transition — Agriculture — Safety — Justice — Health — family — disability — Accommodation — Public services — territories — Culture — sports For each barometer priority policy, the measurement of the outcome of public action is based on a specific indicator that has declined both nationally and locally, showing the initial situation since 2017, the present value, as well as the target in 2022. Finer values are also made available to provide visibility on the evolution of results. The barometer will be regularly updated and will be enriched with new priority policies. ### Data available The following files are available: — ‘BAROMETER-results-synthese’: summary of the indicators with their initial, current and target values, as well as the percentage of progress and the rate of progress. The files are available nationally, regionally and departmentally, in csv and JSON format. — ‘BAROMETER-detail results’: details of indicators with historical values, national, regional and departmental, in csv and JSON format. — ‘BAROMETRE-results-data.xlsx’: this file contains the tables ‘barometer-results-detail’ and ‘barometer-results-syntheses’ for all geographical grids. ### Documentation To facilitate the handling of the data, the following are made available: — A metadata sheet for each file; — A detailed documentation of all the indicators, specifying in particular the process of producing the data. #### Source code The barometer of the results of public action is developed by Etalab, within the Interministerial Directorate for Digital Affairs. The source code is available on Github: — tool source code — data hosting repository — data documentation

The fourth wave is based on a nationally representative probability sample of the population aged 18 and above. In most countries, the sample includes 1,200 citizens. Additional samples of 300 Syrian nationals living outside of refugee camps were included in Jordan and Lebanon. The data were conducted in face-to-face public opinion surveys (CAPI and PAPI).

The Behavioral Health Barometer: United States, Volume 5: Indicators as measured through the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, is one of a series of national, regional, and state reports that provide a snapshot of substance use and mental health in the United States.

Since 2014, Wissenschaft im Dialog has been using the science barometer to collect population-representative data on the attitudes of German citizens towards science and research on an annual basis. The aim is to contribute to a fact-based discourse on the relationship between science and the public and targeted science communication by collecting, processing and communicating the results. The questionnaire of the science barometer contains corresponding questions on cognitive attitudes such as interest and information and the respondents´ information behaviour on topics from science and research. In addition, evaluative attitudes will be collected on issues such as trust, the assessment of the benefits and risks of science and the social role of research. The questions are aimed at general attitudes towards science and research. In individual cases, questions are also devoted to specific research areas or technologies or, alternately, to current developments in science and the public. The science barometers 2014 to 2016 were sponsored by the Philip Morris Foundation, the science barometers 2017 to 2019 by the Robert Bosch Foundation.

Topics: 1. Interest in and knowledge of science and research: interest in politics, economics and finance, culture, sport and science and research; association with science or research (open); interest in scientific topics of specific fields (medicine, technology and new technologies, natural sciences, social sciences and humanities); knowledge of science and research.

1. Information behaviour on science and research: satisfaction with reporting on science and research in the media; perception of various topics from science and research in the media (open).

2. Participation and involvement of citizens in science and research: involvement in decisions on science and research is personally important; sufficient involvement of the public in science and research; insufficient efforts by scientists to inform the public about their work; scientists work for the benefit of society; scientists are aware of the social impact of their work; interest in personal participation in science and research (scientific research project, discussion format with scientists); preferred topic for discussion with a scientist (open).

3. Trust in science and research: general trust in science and research; reasons for trust in scientists (expertise, working according to rules and standards, research in the public interest); reasons for distrust of scientists (frequent mistakes, adapting results to one´s own expectations, dependence on donors);

4. Assessment of the benefits and risks of science to society: attitude towards science and research (science harms more than it benefits, benefit personally from science and research, lead to a better life in the future, change living conditions too quickly through science and research, public funding of research, even without immediate benefit (basic research), people trust science too much instead of feelings and beliefs, should be allowed to explore everything without restriction, new technology with unknown risks should be stopped despite expected benefit); Opinion on unscientific statements (climate change is mainly caused by humans and their actions, vaccinating children does more harm than good, humans and animals have common ancestors from which they have evolved in the course of evolution).

5. Relationship between science and politics: extent of the influence of science on politics, or the influence of politics and business on science;

6. Science and research in the future: the most important field of research for the future.

7. Concrete ideas of science and research: understanding of the concept of something ´to explore scientifically´ (open); abilities or qualities of a good scientist; sufficient discussion of science and research in the Bundestag election campaign.

8. Personal relation to science and research: position in science and research; personal acquaintance with a scientist.

Demography: sex; age; education; occupation; household size; net household income; party preference; religiousness; migration background.

Additionally coded: interview ID; interview duration (in seconds); sample (mobile, landline); weight; city size (BIK); federal state; region.

Leesburg, VA to Indianapolis, Indiana: Sampling Rate: 0.1 Hz Total Travel Time: 31100007 ms or 518 minutes or 8.6 hours Distance Traveled: 570 miles via I-70 Number of Data Points: 3112 Device used: Samsung Galaxy S4 Date Recorded: 2017-01-15 Parameters Recorded: * ACCELEROMETER X (m/s²) * ACCELEROMETER Y (m/s²) * ACCELEROMETER Z (m/s²) * GRAVITY X (m/s²) * GRAVITY Y (m/s²) * GRAVITY Z (m/s²) * LINEAR ACCELERATION X (m/s²) * LINEAR ACCELERATION Y (m/s²) * LINEAR ACCELERATION Z (m/s²) * GYROSCOPE X (rad/s) * GYROSCOPE Y (rad/s) * GYROSCOPE Z (rad/s) * LIGHT (lux) * MAGNETIC FIELD X (microT) * MAGNETIC FIELD Y (microT) * MAGNETIC FIELD Z (microT) * ORIENTATION Z (azimuth °) * ORIENTATION X (pitch °) * ORIENTATION Y (roll °) * PROXIMITY (i) * ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE (hPa) * Relative Humidity (%) * Temperature (F) * SOUND LEVEL (dB) * LOCATION Latitude * LOCATION Longitude * LOCATION Altitude (m) * LOCATION Altitude-google (m) * LOCATION Altitude-atmospheric pressure (m) * LOCATION Speed (kph) * LOCATION Accuracy (m) * LOCATION ORIENTATION (°) * Satellites in range * GPS NMEA * Time since start in ms * Current time in YYYY-MO-DD HH-MI-SS_SSS format Quality Notes: There are some things to note about the quality of this data set that you may want to consider while doing preprocessing. This dataset was taken continuously but had multiple stops to refuel (without the data recording ceasing). This can be removed by parsing out all data that has a speed of 0. The mount for this dataset was fairly stable (as can be seen by the consistent orientation angle throughout the dataset). It was mounted tightly between two seats in the back of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the frequency for this dataset was set fairly low at one per ten seconds.

Indianapolis Int'l Airport to Urbana: Sampling Rate: 2 Hz Total Travel Time: 5901534 ms or 98.4 minutes Number of Data Points: 11805 Distance Traveled: 124 miles via I-74 Device used: Samsung Galaxy S6 Date Recorded: 2016-11-27 Parameters Recorded: * ACCELEROMETER X (m/s²) * ACCELEROMETER Y (m/s²) * ACCELEROMETER Z (m/s²) * GRAVITY X (m/s²) * GRAVITY Y (m/s²) * GRAVITY Z (m/s²) * LINEAR ACCELERATION X (m/s²) * LINEAR ACCELERATION Y (m/s²) * LINEAR ACCELERATION Z (m/s²) * GYROSCOPE X (rad/s) * GYROSCOPE Y (rad/s) * GYROSCOPE Z (rad/s) * LIGHT (lux) * MAGNETIC FIELD X (microT) * MAGNETIC FIELD Y (microT) * MAGNETIC FIELD Z (microT) * ORIENTATION Z (azimuth °) * ORIENTATION X (pitch °) * ORIENTATION Y (roll °) * PROXIMITY (i) * ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE (hPa) * SOUND LEVEL (dB) * LOCATION Latitude * LOCATION Longitude * LOCATION Altitude (m) * LOCATION Altitude-google (m) * LOCATION Altitude-atmospheric pressure (m) * LOCATION Speed (kph) * LOCATION Accuracy (m) * LOCATION ORIENTATION (°) * Satellites in range * GPS NMEA * Time since start in ms * Current time in YYYY-MO-DD HH-MI-SS_SSS format Quality Notes: There are some things to note about the quality of this data set that you may want to consider while doing preprocessing. This dataset was taken continuously as a single trip, no stop was made for gas along the way making this a very long continuous dataset. It starts in the parking lot of the Indianapolis International Airport and continues directly towards a gas station on Lincoln Avenue in Urbana, IL. There are a couple parts of the trip where the phones orientation had to be changed because my navigation cut out. These times are easy to account for based on Orientation X/Y/Z change. I would also advise cutting out the first couple hundred points or the points leading up to highway speed. The phone was mounted in the cupholder in the front seat of the car.

Abstract

The South African Reconciliation Barometer is a time series public opinion survey that measures South African's attitudes towards reconciliation. Barometer surveys were conducted in 2003 (Rounds 1-2) and 2004 (Rounds 3- 4 (2 rounds per year); 2005 - 2013 (Rounds 5-13) (one round per year); and 2015 - 2023 (Rounds 14 to 18) (one round every 2nd year). The merged 2003-2015 dataset is made available by DataFirst, as well as separate datasets for 2017 (Round 15), 2019 (Round 16), 2021 (Round 17), and 2023 (Round 18).

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

The survey covered all persons over 16 years of age living in multimember households. Individuals in informal settlements were also included in the sampling frame. Domestic workers and hostel dwellers were excluded from the sample.

Kind of data

Survey data

Sampling procedure

Sampling of respondents assumed the form of a multistage area-probability sample with three calls. The sampling included persons of 16 years and older living in multimember households. People living in informal settlements were included in the sampling frame. However, domestic workers and hostel dwellers were excluded from the sample. Enumeration Areas were drawn from the 2001 Population Census and sampling points were allocated to sub-places in each of the metros. Within each of the sampled sub-places, a street was randomly selected using a Geographical Information System (GIS) application, which indicates all the streets within the boundaries of each sub-place. The streets were listed and a street randomly selected from the list of streets. In the selected street between four and six dwellings were then be selected using a random walk procedure in the selected area. If there was more than one household at a dwelling, one household was chosen using a random procedure. At every alternate dwelling, all the males or all the females over 16 years of age were listed in order of age and thereafter one chosen using a random selection grid.If the interviewer found at their first visit that the qualifying person was not available for the duration of the fieldwork such as being on holiday or being sick, or could not speak any of the South African official languages, interviewers were allowed to substitute immediately. Three calls had to be made prior to substituting.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Each round of the SARB survey used a separate questionnaire and questionnaires changed between rounds. Sometimes changes were only to accommodate rewording but in some cases questions were removed or re-introduced. In recent rounds the goal of the IJR was to include 5-10% of questions on 'topical' issues, e.g., questions on Covid in 2021.

This dataset contains meteorological and oceanographic data collected by the Central Gulf Ocean Observing System (CenGOOS) buoy in the Gulf of Mexico from 2017-01-01 to 2017-07-26. This buoy was moored south of Horn Island in 20 m of water at 30.0424 ˚N and 88.6473˚W. The buoy collected both meteorological and oceanographic data including air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, current speed and direction, current profiles, and significant wave height and period. Other related datasets from the year 2015 and 2016 are available under GRIIDC Unique Dataset Identifiers (UDIS) R4.x260.204:0003 (DOI: 10.7266/n7-eep5-5k62) and R4.x260.204:0013 (DOI: 10.7266/n7-ejqc-vk96) respectively. All datasets are archived by the University of Southern Mississippi (USM). The meteorological and near-sea surface temperature, salinity, and waves data are also archived through the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC; identified as Station 42067). cdm_data_type=TimeSeries cdm_timeseries_variables=timeSeries, latitude, longitude contributor_country=USA contributor_email=j.davis@usm.edu contributor_institution=University of Southern Mississippi / Department of Marine Science contributor_name=James (Jamie) Davis contributor_phone=+1-228-688-3177 contributor_role=Applications Programmer contributor_role_vocabulary=https://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/G04/current/ Conventions=CF-1.6, ACDD-1.3, IOOS-1.2, COARDS Country=USA date_metadata_modified=2021-04-26T19:50:22Z Easternmost_Easting=-88.6473 featureType=TimeSeries geospatial_bounds=Point (30.0424, -88.6473) geospatial_bounds_crs=EPSG:4326 geospatial_bounds_vertical_crs=EPSG:5831 geospatial_lat_max=30.0424 geospatial_lat_min=30.0424 geospatial_lat_units=degrees_north geospatial_lon_max=-88.6473 geospatial_lon_min=-88.6473 geospatial_lon_units=degrees_east geospatial_vertical_positive=up geospatial_vertical_units=m history=2021-04-26T19:50:18Z id=2017_buoy_data infoUrl=https://data.gulfresearchinitiative.org/data/R4.x260.204:0014 institution=University of Southern Mississippi / Department of Marine Science instrument=Anenometer, Barometer, Temperature and Humidity Sensor, wave statistics sensor instrument_vocabulary=GCMD Science Keywords Version 9.1.5 keywords_vocabulary=GCMD Science Keywords metadata_link=https://data.gulfresearchinitiative.org/data/R4.x260.204:0014 naming_authority=edu.usm Northernmost_Northing=30.0424 platform=buoy platform_vocabulary=https://mmisw.org/ont/ioos/platform processing_level=Geophysical units from raw data program=Gulf Of Mexico Reseach Initiative (GOMRI) project=Consortium for Oil Spill Exposure Pathways in Coastal River-Dominated Ecosystems (CONCORDE) references=data.gomri.org sea_name=Gulf of Mexico source=in situ measuremnts sourceUrl=(local files) Southernmost_Northing=30.0424 standard_name_vocabulary=CF Standard Name Table v72 subsetVariables=timeSeries, latitude, longitude, height, platform, instrument, instrument1, instrument2, instrument3, crs time_coverage_duration=P00Y6M24DT18H00M00S time_coverage_end=2017-07-26T18:00:15Z time_coverage_resolution=PT1800S time_coverage_start=2017-01-01T00:00:15Z Westernmost_Easting=-88.6473

German-speaking resident population aged 14 and over in private households

This dataset lists the opinion ratings assigned to SNCF for its services. They come from surveys conducted by IPSOS (French Survey Institute) among the national population represented by two samples including on the one hand the French (reputation component) and on the other hand the customers (brand experience component).

Data is sourced from Stats SA, CoCT, Dept Water Affairs, . Data is transformed into a BI format and quality assured. Data is consumed by a dashboard created in Power BI. The following reports exist for this dashboard:1. Electricity and WasteElectricity distributed in SA; Filter by year, province, month and region; by GWhElectricity distributed in WC; Filter by year, and month; by GWhTotal Waste minimised; Filter by year and facility; total waste minimised by month in Tons2. Zones, Dams, and ConservationBlue Drop Status; Filter by province and year; Blue Drop scoreGreen Drop Status; Filter by province and year; Green Drop scorePercentage dams filled to capacity; Hectares of biodiversity under conservation;Publication Date16 November 2021LineageData from Electricity generated and available for distribution, Stats SA, Waste diverted in City of Cape Town from CoCT open data portal, Dept of Water Affairs dam levels and blue- and green drop reports, and State of Biodiversity ReportDynamic dashboard reflecting the Outcome Indicator Release - Outcome Indicator: Electricity distributed in South Africa (2002-2020)Electricity distributed in the Western Cape (2002-2020)Total waste diverted from landfill sites in a given year in the City of Cape Town (2015-2019)Blue Drop Status (2009-2014) - Average Blue Drop status of the drinking water quality management businesses in the Western Cape.Green Drop Status (2009-2014) - Average Green Drop status of the waste water management in the Western Cape.Percentage dams filled to capacity (2012-2019) - The monthly dam level is calculated from the estimated dam levels on the 1st of each month or the earliest available estimates for the monthHectares of biodiversitry under conservation (2007, 2012, 2017) - by biodiversity stewardship programmePublication Date2 September 2021Data SourceData from Electricity generated and available for distribution 2021, Stats SAWaste diverted in City of Cape Town - CoCT open data portalDepartment of Water Affairs: Dam Levels (2012-2019); Blue Drop Reports (2009-2014 ); Green Drop Report (2009, 2011, 2014);State of Biodiversity Report 2017

This dataset contains high latitude sea level anomalies produced by DTU (Technical University of Denmark) and TUM (Technical University of Munich) as part of the ESA Sea Level CCI (Climate Change Initiative) project, covering both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

The data comprises weekly means from August 1991 to April 2017 and has been obtained using satellite altimetry data from four satellite missions: ERS1 (weeks 0 - 217); ERS2 (weeks 218 - 573); Envisat (weeks 574 - 1020); CryoSat-2 (weeks 1021 - 1336).

Two datasets are available: dataset #1 is based on the ALES+ retracking without correction of the inverse barometer whereas dataset #2 has been corrected for this effect.

Dataset #1 is provided both 'masked' and 'unmasked', where the masked data have been masked using sea ice concentrations downloaded from osisaf.met.no/p/ice. Dataset #2 is provided both 'masked' and 'unmasked', where the masked data have had data points retrieved over land removed from the files.

Crime is a major problem in Latin America and the Caribbean. With 9 percent of the world's population, the region accounts for 33 percent of global homicides. This dataset makes extensive new survey data available to help identify what anti-crime policies citizens in the region demand from their governments, as well as who is demanding what and why. This dataset accompanies a recent report on Combating Crime in Latin America and the Caribbean, https://publications.iadb.org/en/combating-crime-latin-america-and-caribbean-what-public-policies-do-citizens-want

Data from Americas Barometer study were collected in 2016–17 and refer to the subsample of 17 countries in Latin America. The IADB–LAPOP–Capital Cities Project includes data collected from 2017, between August and September. A total of 6,040 interviews in seven countries were conducted as part of the project (Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay). Methodology and Code variables definitions are available here: https://publications.iadb.org/en/what-public-policies-do-citizens-want-combating-crime-latin-america-and-caribbean-dataset

Splitgraph serves as an HTTP API that lets you run SQL queries directly on this data to power Web applications. For example:

See the Splitgraph documentation for more information.

Mit dem Wissenschaftsbarometer erhebt Wissenschaft im Dialog seit 2014 jährlich bevölkerungsrepräsentative Daten zu Einstellungen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Deutschland gegenüber Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ziel ist es, durch die Erhebung, Aufbereitung der Daten und Kommunikation der Ergebnisse zu einem faktenbasierten Diskurs über das Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit und eine zielgerichtete Wissenschaftskommunikation beizutragen. Der Fragebogen des Wissenschaftsbarometers beinhaltet entsprechend Fragestellungen zu kognitiven Einstellungen wie Interesse und Informiertheit und dem Informationsverhalten der Befragten zu Themen aus Wissenschaft und Forschung. Außerdem werden evaluative Einstellungen u. a. zum Vertrauen, zur Beurteilung von Nutzen und Risiken von Wissenschaft und zur gesellschaftlichen Rolle von Forschung erhoben. Die Fragestellungen zielen auf allgemeine Einstellungen gegenüber Wissenschaft und Forschung ab. In Einzelfällen widmen sich Fragen auch konkreten Forschungsbereichen oder Technologien oder im jährlichen Wechsel auch aktuellen Entwicklungen in Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit. Die Wissenschaftsbarometer 2014 bis 2016 wurden von der Philip Morris Stiftung gefördert, die Wissenschaftsbarometer 2017 bis 2019 von der Robert Bosch Stiftung. Themen: 1. Interesse an und Informiertheit zu Wissenschaft und Forschung: Interesse an den Themen Politik, Wirtschaft und Finanzen, Kultur, Sport sowie Wissenschaft und Forschung; Assoziation zu Wissenschaft oder Forschung (offen); Interesse an wissenschaftlichen Themen bestimmter Bereiche (Medizin, Technik und neue Technologien, Naturwissenschaften, Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften); Informiertheit zu Wissenschaft und Forschung. 2. Informationsverhalten zu Wissenschaft und Forschung: Zufriedenheit mit der Berichterstattung über Wissenschaft und Forschung in den Medien; Wahrnehmung verschiedener Themen aus Wissenschaft und Forschung in den Medien (offen). 3. Beteiligung und Einbezug von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in Wissenschaft und Forschung: Einbezug in Entscheidungen über Wissenschaft und Forschung persönlich wichtig; ausreichender Einbezug der Öffentlichkeit in Wissenschaft und Forschung; zu geringe Bemühungen von Wissenschaftlern die Öffentlichkeit über ihre Arbeit zu informieren; Wissenschaftler arbeiten zum Wohl der Gesellschaft; Wissenschaftler sind sich der gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen ihrer Arbeit bewusst; Interesse an persönlicher Beteiligung an Wissenschaft und Forschung (wissenschaftliches Forschungsprojekt, Diskussionsformat mit Wissenschaftlern); präferiertes Thema für Diskussion mit einem Wissenschaftler (offen). 4. Vertrauen in Wissenschaft und Forschung: Generelles Vertrauen in Wissenschaft und Forschung; Gründe für Vertrauen zu Wissenschaftlern (Expertise, Arbeiten nach Regeln und Standards, Forschung im Interesse der Öffentlichkeit); Gründe für Misstrauen gegen Wissenschaftler (häufige Fehler, Anpassen von Ergebnissen an eigene Erwartungen, Abhängigkeit von Geldgebern); 5. Bewertung des Nutzens und der Risiken von Wissenschaft für die Gesellschaft: Einstellung zu Wissenschaft und Forschung (Wissenschaft schadet mehr als sie nützt, profitiere persönlich von Wissenschaft und Forschung, führen in Zukunft zu einem besseren Leben, zu schnelle Änderung der Lebensbedingungen durch Wissenschaft und Forschung, öffentliche Finanzierung von Forschung, auch ohne unmittelbaren Nutzen (Grundlagenforschung), Menschen vertrauen zu sehr der Wissenschaft anstatt Gefühlen und Glauben, sollten ohne Einschränkung alles erforschen dürfen, neue Technologie mit unbekannten Risiken sollte gestoppt werden trotz erwartetem Nutzen); Meinung zu unwissenschaftlichen Aussagen (Klimawandel wird hauptsächlich durch Menschen und ihr Handeln verursacht, Kinder zu impfen schadet mehr als es nützt, Menschen und Tiere haben gemeinsame Vorfahren, aus denen sie sich im Laufe der Evolution entwickelt haben). 6. Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Politik: Umfang des Einflusses der Wissenschaft auf die Politik, bzw. des Einflusses der Politik sowie der Wirtschaft auf die Wissenschaft; 7. Wissenschaft und Forschung in der Zukunft: Wichtigster Forschungsbereich für die Zukunft. 8. Konkrete Vorstellungen von Wissenschaft und Forschung: Verständnis des Begriffs etwas ‚wissenschaftlich zu erforschen‘ (offen); Fähigkeiten bzw. Eigenschaften eines guten Wissenschaftlers/ einer guten Wissenschaftlerin; ausreichende Thematisierung von Wissenschaft und Forschung im Bundestagswahlkampf. 9. Persönlicher Bezug zu Wissenschaft und Forschung: Arbeitsstelle in Wissenschaft und Forschung; persönliche Bekanntschaft mit einem Wissenschaftler/ einer Wissenschaftlerin. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter; Schulbildung; Berufstätigkeit; Haushaltsgröße; Haushaltsnettoeinkommen; Parteipräferenz; Religiosität; Migrationshintergrund. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Interview-Nr.; Interviewdauer (in Sekunden); Stichprobe (Mobil, Festnetz); Gewicht; Ortsgröße (BIK); Bundesland; Region. Since 2014, Wissenschaft im Dialog has been using the science barometer to collect population-representative data on the attitudes of German citizens towards science and research on an annual basis. The aim is to contribute to a fact-based discourse on the relationship between science and the public and targeted science communication by collecting, processing and communicating the results. The questionnaire of the science barometer contains corresponding questions on cognitive attitudes such as interest and information and the respondents´ information behaviour on topics from science and research. In addition, evaluative attitudes will be collected on issues such as trust, the assessment of the benefits and risks of science and the social role of research. The questions are aimed at general attitudes towards science and research. In individual cases, questions are also devoted to specific research areas or technologies or, alternately, to current developments in science and the public. The science barometers 2014 to 2016 were sponsored by the Philip Morris Foundation, the science barometers 2017 to 2019 by the Robert Bosch Foundation. Topics: 1. Interest in and knowledge of science and research: interest in politics, economics and finance, culture, sport and science and research; association with science or research (open); interest in scientific topics of specific fields (medicine, technology and new technologies, natural sciences, social sciences and humanities); knowledge of science and research. 2. Information behaviour on science and research: satisfaction with reporting on science and research in the media; perception of various topics from science and research in the media (open). 3. Participation and involvement of citizens in science and research: involvement in decisions on science and research is personally important; sufficient involvement of the public in science and research; insufficient efforts by scientists to inform the public about their work; scientists work for the benefit of society; scientists are aware of the social impact of their work; interest in personal participation in science and research (scientific research project, discussion format with scientists); preferred topic for discussion with a scientist (open). 4. Trust in science and research: general trust in science and research; reasons for trust in scientists (expertise, working according to rules and standards, research in the public interest); reasons for distrust of scientists (frequent mistakes, adapting results to one´s own expectations, dependence on donors); 5. Assessment of the benefits and risks of science to society: attitude towards science and research (science harms more than it benefits, benefit personally from science and research, lead to a better life in the future, change living conditions too quickly through science and research, public funding of research, even without immediate benefit (basic research), people trust science too much instead of feelings and beliefs, should be allowed to explore everything without restriction, new technology with unknown risks should be stopped despite expected benefit); Opinion on unscientific statements (climate change is mainly caused by humans and their actions, vaccinating children does more harm than good, humans and animals have common ancestors from which they have evolved in the course of evolution). 6. Relationship between science and politics: extent of the influence of science on politics, or the influence of politics and business on science; 7. Science and research in the future: the most important field of research for the future. 8. Concrete ideas of science and research: understanding of the concept of something ´to explore scientifically´ (open); abilities or qualities of a good scientist; sufficient discussion of science and research in the Bundestag election campaign. 9. Personal relation to science and research: position in science and research; personal acquaintance with a scientist. Demography: sex; age; education; occupation; household size; net household income; party preference; religiousness; migration background. Additionally coded: interview ID; interview duration (in seconds); sample (mobile, landline); weight; city size (BIK); federal state; region.

• Area of greatest interest to citizens: defence, education, health, housing, pensions, transport, citizen security, social services or work.
• Assessment of the functioning of the Spanish health system.
• Satisfaction scale (1-10) with the functioning of the Spanish health system.
• Type of health service, public or private, that you would use in case you need to go to a consultation.
• Satisfaction scale (1-10) of different public health services.
• Assistance to the GP in the last year, number of visits, unsolicited change of doctor, assessment of the care received and fulfillment of expectations.
• Appointment request at the health center (coincidence between the day of the request and the appointment) and waiting time. Knowledge and use of different forms of access to public health services.
• Rating scale (0-10) for different forms of access to public health services.
• Rating scale (0-10) for different forms of access to public health services.
• Agreement with phrases on the care of the GP or family and paediatrics.
• Assistance to the emergency service during the last year, number of visits, reason, evaluation of the care received and fulfillment of expectations.
• Assistance to the doctor of specialized care in the last year, number of visits, evaluation of the care received, fulfillment of expectations and waiting time.
• Satisfaction scale (1-10) with different aspects of specialised public health care.
• Admission to a hospital of the interviewee in the last year, number of hospitalizations, evaluation of the care received and fulfillment of expectations.
• Satisfaction scale (1-10) on aspects related to the care provided in public hospitals.
• Personal opinion on good communication and coordination between different doctors in the public system.
• Retrospective assessment (1 year) of waiting lists in public health.
• Use of the electronic prescription system in the last twelve months and satisfaction scale (1-10).
• Problem with withdrawing medicines by e-prescription.
• Opinion on the new pharmaceutical delivery system.
• Impossibility of buying the prescription drug or vaccine due to its economic cost.
• Possession and type of unused prescription drugs kept at home.
• Knowledge of whether the law allows smoking on roofed terraces and closed by more than two walls and opinion about smoking on them.
• Scale (1-10) on compliance with the law prohibiting smoking in different places.
• Degree of agreement with different sentences on the consumption of alcohol in minors.
• Opinion on the information that parents have about the risks of children drinking alcohol.
• A measure that is considered a priority to avoid alcohol consumption in minors.
• Ideological self-location scale (1-10).
• Electoral participation in the 2016 general elections
• State of health in general.
• Having a chronic health problem.
• Current tobacco use
• Level of personal and family income.
• Nationality of the interviewee and non-Spanish interviewee. Time of acquisition of Spanish nationality. Level of knowledge of Spanish of the interviewee and attributed.
• Place of birth (autonomous community or country).

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F6493372%2F0200f28d4c3fc86bb741d54c9aa45062%2F59b4e28b681f9bf72ef1be751b36b8c6_1200x.jpg?generation=1760799761523202&alt=media" alt="">This dataset contains a list of 423 consumer-based wrist-worn activity trackers and smart watches, capable of collecting and estimating physical activity levels in individuals, using accelerometer and other sensors. For each device, 12 attributes are included. See list bellow (column headers).

Method

Data were collected by automatic and manual searches through six online and offline databases, as well as manual collecting of data from company web sites. Data was collected in 2017, and contains all identified devices released between 2011 (earliest identified device) and July 2017. For each device 12 attributes were collected. See list below (variables). For more information see the publication related to this dataset: DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9157

Related Publication

Henriksen A, Haugen Mikalsen M, Woldaregay A, Muzny M, Hartvigsen G, Hopstock L, Grimsgaard S, Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables, J Med Internet Res 2018;20(3):e110, DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9157

Files

Both files contain the same data. data.csv - Raw data, using semicolon-separated columns

Variables

The following column headers are contained in both data-files

Company name - Name of company that made the device model Device name - Name of model Crowd funded - Indicate if the devices was funded thru crowd funding (TRUE/FALSE) County of origin - Company country of origin
Release year - Year devices was released to the consumer market Form factor - Indicate if this is a smart watch (watch) or activity tracker (tracker) Accelerometer - Does the device include an accelerometer (All TRUE) Gyroscope - Does the device include a gyroscope (TRUE/FALSE) Magnetometer - Does the device include a magnetometer (TRUE/FALSE) Barometer - Does the device include a barometer or altimeter (TRUE/FALSE) GPS - Does the device support global positioning system (TRUE/FALSE) PPG - Does the device include a photoplethysmograph for optical puls measuring(TRUE/FALSE)

The Population Digital Maturity Barometer is a survey to quantitatively assess Caledonians' digital access, uses and understanding, as well as their level of confidence in digital use.This survey was conducted in 2017 by the New Caledonian government in order to :Have a decision-making tool for institutional and private players offering the possibility of monitoring New Caledonia's digital development and guiding their strategies.Assess the impact of the Strategic Plan for the Digital Economy (PSEN) and related actions on New Caledonia's digital development over time.ment numérique de la Nouvelle-Calédonie dans le temps.Identify areas for improvement in order to adjust the PSEN to requirements and realities on the ground.The survey was carried out by phone throughout the territory, among 1,160 New Caledonians over the age of 15.In addition to socio-demographic characteristics, the questionnaire covered several topics related to digital usage :Internet access (subscriptions, connection types, connection rates, wifi use, etc.). Digital equipment and tools (computers, telephones and mobile terminals, multimedia equipment, software used, etc.).Fixed and mobile Internet use (frequency of use, main uses, cloud services used, obstacles encountered, expectations, etc.).Use of online public services (sites consulted, types of procedures carried out, obstacles encountered, expectations, etc.)..Internet access locations (home, digital public spaces, third-party sites, obstacles encountered, etc.).Online commerce (services requested, online purchases and sales made, online payments made, obstacles encountered, expectations, etc.).Personal security (security incidents, viruses, security tools used, knowledge of Internet-related risks, expectations, fears, etc.). Digital skills, support and training (skill levels, training methods, training offered, training taken, etc.).Eco-responsibility (awareness, consumption, treatment of old equipment, etc.).Digital profiles of New Caledonians (based on socio-cultural, geographical, economic criteria and digital practices).Attached you'll find:the questionnairethe summary reportthe summary infographic