The GLA Population Yield Calculator is a tool for estimating population yield from new housing development. Please see the methodology paper for guidance using the calculator. There are two versions of the calculator. Both versions draw on the same underlying census and LDD data. Following user feedback, version 2 of the calculator contains a simlified user interface and broader geographic aggregations. The calculator is in XLSX (Excel 2007 and later) format.

The GLA Population Yield Calculator is a tool for estimating population yield from new housing development. The calculator provides users with an indication of the possible number and age of children that could be expected to live in a new housing development of a given bedroom or tenure mix.

Please see the calculator’s methodology document for further details and user guidance.

The calculator is in XLSX (Excel 2007 and later) format.

The tool was updated 23rd October 2019.

Previously published versions are available in the compressed archive file

The map reliability calculator was developed to provide guidance for those mapping American Community Survey (ACS) data, with regards to data uncertainty and its impact on a map. ACS estimates are derived from a survey, and such statistics are subject to sampling error – divergence from the actual characteristics of the surveyed population. Sampling error can have a considerable impact on the representativeness of maps. One way to measure the impact of sampling error on quantitative choropleth maps is to calculate the probability that geographic units are misclassified. The calculator determines probable misclassification by examining published estimates, their associated Margins of Error (MOEs), and category break points. Using these numbers along with a standard probability density function, the calculator determines the likelihood that an estimate’s actual value falls in a different category. The cumulative probability of erroneously classed units is summed for all geographies in a category and averaged, to produce a relative reliability statistic. The same averaging of the cumulative probability of error is also calculated for the entire map. From these statistics, ACS data mappers can see the likelihood, on average, that any given geography in a map, or map category, actually falls in a different category and has therefore been misclassified. The map reliability calculator was developed to provide guidance for those mapping American Community Survey (ACS) data, with regards to data uncertainty and its impact on a map. ACS estimates are derived from a survey, and such statistics are subject to sampling error – divergence from the actual characteristics of the surveyed population. Sampling error can have a considerable impact on the representativeness of maps. One way to measure the impact of sampling error on quantitative choropleth maps is to calculate the probability that geographic units are misclassified. The calculator determines probable misclassification by examining published estimates, their associated Margins of Error (MOEs), and category break points. Using these numbers along with a standard probability density function, the calculator determines the likelihood that an estimate’s actual value falls in a different category. The cumulative probability of erroneously classed units is summed for all geographies in a category and averaged, to produce a relative reliability statistic. The same averaging of the cumulative probability of error is also calculated for the entire map. From these statistics, ACS data mappers can see the likelihood, on average, that any given geography in a map, or map category, actually falls in a different category and has therefore been misclassified. To provide further guidance, the map reliability calculator also tells ACS data mappers whether their proposed map passes a reliability test – suggesting that the map is suitable for general use. There are two criteria employed in this reliability threshold. First, a map must have less than a 10% chance of erroneously classed geographies. This matches the Census Bureau’s standard of publishing MOEs at a 90% confidence interval and using the 90% confidence level to determine statistically significant differences. Additionally, all individual categories must have reliability scores under 20%. This second criterion ensures that even categories with relatively few geographies, and therefore little impact on overall map reliability, still are reasonably trustworthy representations of reality.

Supplementary data for "MODY Probability Calculator is Suitable for MODY Screening in China: a population based study"

Abstract

The principal objective of the Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) is to provide current and reliable data on fertility and family planning behavior, child mortality, children’s nutritional status, the utilization of maternal and child health services, and knowledge of HIV/AIDS. This information is essential for informed policy decisions, planning, monitoring, and evaluation of programs on health in general and reproductive health in particular at both the national and regional levels. A long-term objective of the survey is to strengthen the technical capacity of the Central Statistical Authority to plan, conduct, process, and analyze data from complex national population and health surveys. Moreover, the 2000 Ethiopia DHS is the first survey of its kind in the country to provide national and regional estimates on population and health that are comparable to data collected in similar surveys in other developing countries. As part of the worldwide DHS project, the Ethiopia DHS data add to the vast and growing international database on demographic and health variables. The Ethiopia DHS collected demographic and health information from a nationally representative sample of women and men in the reproductive age groups 15-49 and 15-59, respectively.

The Ethiopia DHS was carried out under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and was implemented by the Central Statistical Authority. ORC Macro provided technical assistance through its MEASURE DHS+ project. The survey was principally funded by the Essential Services for Health in Ethiopia (ESHE) project through a bilateral agreement between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Funding was also provided by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The Ethiopia DHS used the sampling frame provided by the list of census enumeration areas (EAs) with population and household information from the 1994 Population and Housing Census. A proportional sample allocation was discarded because this procedure yielded a distribution in which 80 percent of the sample came from three regions, 16 percent from four regions and 4 percent from five regions. To avoid such an uneven sample allocation among regions, it was decided that the sample should be allocated by region in proportion to the square root of the region's population size. Additional adjustments were made to ensure that the sample size for each region included at least 700 households, in order to yield estimates with reasonable statistical precision.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The Ethiopia DHS used three questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire, which were based on model survey instruments developed for the international MEASURE DHS+ project. The questionnaires were specifically geared toward obtaining the kind of information needed by health and family planning program managers and policymakers. The model questionnaires were then adapted to local conditions and a number of additional questions specific to on-going health and family planning programs in Ethiopia were added. These questionnaires were developed in the English language and translated into the five principal languages in use in the country: Amarigna, Oromigna, Tigrigna, Somaligna, and Afarigna. They were then independently translated back to English and appropriate changes were made in the translation of questions in which the back-translated version did not compare well with the original English version. A pretest of all three questionnaires was conducted in the five local languages in November 1999.

All usual members in a selected household and visitors who stayed there the previous night were enumerated using the Household Questionnaire. Specifically, the Household Questionnaire obtained information on the relationship to the head of the household, residence, sex, age, marital status, parental survivorship, and education of each usual resident or visitor. This information was used to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. Women age 15-49 in all selected households and all men age 15-59 in every fifth selected household, whether usual residents or visitors, were deemed eligible, and were interviewed. The Household Questionnaire also obtained information on some basic socioeconomic indicators such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water, the type of toilet facilities, and the ownership of a variety of durable items. Information was also obtained on the use of impregnated bednets, and the salt used in each household was tested for its iodine content. All eligible women and all children born since Meskerem 1987 in the Ethiopian Calendar, which roughly corresponds to September 1994 in the Gregorian Calendar, were weighed and measured.

The Women’s Questionnaire collected information on female respondent’s background characteristics, reproductive history, contraceptive knowledge and use, antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, infant feeding practices, child immunization and health, marriage, fertility preferences, and attitudes about family planning, husband’s background characteristics and women’s work, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

The Men’s Questionnaire collected information on the male respondent’s background characteristics, reproduction, contraceptive knowledge and use, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, and knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STIs.

Response rate

A total of 14,642 households were selected for the Ethiopia DHS, of which 14,167 were found to be occupied. Household interviews were completed for 99 percent of the occupied households. A total of 15,716 eligible women from these households and 2,771 eligible men from every fifth household were identified for the individual interviews. The response rate for eligible women is slightly higher than for eligible men (98 percent compared with 94 percent, respectively). Interviews were successfully completed for 15,367 women and 2,607 men.

There is no difference by urban-rural residence in the overall response rate for eligible women; however, rural men are slightly more likely than urban men to have completed an interview (94 percent and 92 percent, respectively). The overall response rate among women by region is relatively high and ranges from 93 percent in the Affar Region to 99 percent in the Oromiya Region. The response rate among men ranges from 83 percent in the Affar Region to 98 percent in the Tigray and Benishangul-Gumuz regions.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table A.1.1 and Table A.1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

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

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

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

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

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age

This dataset shows the Methodology for measuring uncertainty in ONS (Office for National Statistics) local authority mid-year population estimates

Objective To demonstrate a process of calculating the maximum potential morphine milligram equivalent daily dose (MEDD) based on the prescription Sig for use in quality improvement initiatives. Methods To calculate an opioid prescription's maximum potential Sig-MEDD, we developed SQL code to determine a prescription's maximum units/day using discrete field data and text-parsing in the prescription instructions. We validated the derived units/day calculation using 3,000 Sigs, then compared the Sig-MEDD calculation against the Epic MEDD calculator. Results Of the 101,782 outpatient opioid prescriptions ordered over one year, 80% used discrete-field Sigs, 7% used free-text Sigs, and 3% used both types. We determined units/day and calculated a Sig-MEDD for 98.3% of all prescriptions, 99.99% of discrete-Sig prescriptions, and 81.5% of free-text-Sig prescriptions. Conclusion Analyzing opioid prescription Sigs to determine a maximum potential Sig-MEDD provides greater insight into a patient's risk for opioid exposure.

Although South Africa is the global epicenter of the HIV epidemic, the uptake of HIV testing and treatment among young people remains low. Concerns about confidentiality impede the utilization of HIV prevention services, which signals the need for discrete HIV prevention measures that leverage youth-friendly platforms. This paper describes the process of developing a youth-friendly internet-enabled HIV risk calculator in collaboration with young people, including young key populations aged between 18 and 24 years old. Using qualitative research, we conducted an exploratory study with 40 young people including young key population (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) individuals, men who have sex with men (MSM), and female sex workers). Eligible participants were young people aged between 18–24 years old and living in Soweto. Data was collected through two peer group discussions with young people aged 18–24 years, a once-off group discussion with the [Name of clinic removed for confidentiality] adolescent community advisory board members and once off face-to-face in-depth interviews with young key population groups: LGBT individuals, MSM, and female sex workers. LGBT individuals are identified as key populations because they face increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS and other health risks due to societal stigma, discrimination, and obstacles in accessing healthcare and support services. The measures used to collect data included a socio-demographic questionnaire, a questionnaire on mobile phone usage, an HIV and STI risk assessment questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview guide. Framework analysis was used to analyse qualitative data through a qualitative data analysis software called NVivo. Descriptive statistics were summarized using SPSS for participant socio-demographics and mobile phone usage. Of the 40 enrolled participants, 58% were male, the median age was 20 (interquartile range 19–22.75), and 86% had access to the internet. Participants’ recommendations were considered in developing the HIV risk calculator. They indicated a preference for an easy-to-use, interactive, real-time assessment offering discrete and private means to self-assess HIV risk. In addition to providing feedback on the language and wording of the risk assessment tool, participants recommended creating a colorful, interactive and informational app. A collaborative and user-driven process is crucial for designing and developing HIV prevention tools for targeted groups. Participants emphasized that privacy, confidentiality, and ease of use contribute to the acceptability and willingness to use internet-enabled HIV prevention methods.

This table contains 2394 series, with data for years 1991 - 1991 (not all combinations necessarily have data for all years). This table contains data described by the following dimensions (Not all combinations are available): Geography (1 items: Canada ...), Population group (19 items: Entire cohort; Income adequacy quintile 1 (lowest);Income adequacy quintile 2;Income adequacy quintile 3 ...), Age (14 items: At 25 years; At 30 years; At 40 years; At 35 years ...), Sex (3 items: Both sexes; Females; Males ...), Characteristics (3 items: Life expectancy; High 95% confidence interval; life expectancy; Low 95% confidence interval; life expectancy ...).

Abstract

The Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey PDHS 2017-18 was the fourth of its kind in Pakistan, following the 1990-91, 2006-07, and 2012-13 PDHS surveys.

The primary objective of the 2017-18 PDHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and health indicators. The PDHS provides a comprehensive overview of population, maternal, and child health issues in Pakistan. Specifically, the 2017-18 PDHS collected information on:

• Key demographic indicators, particularly fertility and under-5 mortality rates, at the national level, for urban and rural areas, and within the country’s eight regions
• Direct and indirect factors that determine levels and trends of fertility and child mortality
• Contraceptive knowledge and practice
• Maternal health and care including antenatal, perinatal, and postnatal care
• Child feeding practices, including breastfeeding, and anthropometric measures to assess the nutritional status of children under age 5 and women age 15-49
• Key aspects of family health, including vaccination coverage and prevalence of diseases among infants and children under age 5
• Knowledge and attitudes of women and men about sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS, and potential exposure to risk
• Women's empowerment and its relationship to reproductive health and family planning
• Disability level
• Extent of gender-based violence
• Migration patterns

The information collected through the 2017-18 PDHS is intended to assist policymakers and program managers at the federal and provincial government levels, in the private sector, and at international organisations in evaluating and designing programs and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population. The data also provides information on indicators relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-49

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), children age 0-5 years, women age 15-49 years and men age 15-49 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame used for the 2017-18 PDHS is a complete list of enumeration blocks (EBs) created for the Pakistan Population and Housing Census 2017, which was conducted from March to May 2017. The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) supported the sample design of the survey and worked in close coordination with NIPS. The 2017-18 PDHS represents the population of Pakistan including Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the former Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA), which were not included in the 2012-13 PDHS. The results of the 2017-18 PDHS are representative at the national level and for the urban and rural areas separately. The survey estimates are also representative for the four provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan; for two regions including AJK and Gilgit Baltistan (GB); for Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT); and for FATA. In total, there are 13 secondlevel survey domains.

The 2017-18 PDHS followed a stratified two-stage sample design. The stratification was achieved by separating each of the eight regions into urban and rural areas. In total, 16 sampling strata were created. Samples were selected independently in every stratum through a two-stage selection process. Implicit stratification and proportional allocation were achieved at each of the lower administrative levels by sorting the sampling frame within each sampling stratum before sample selection, according to administrative units at different levels, and by using a probability-proportional-to-size selection at the first stage of sampling.

The first stage involved selecting sample points (clusters) consisting of EBs. EBs were drawn with a probability proportional to their size, which is the number of households residing in the EB at the time of the census. A total of 580 clusters were selected.

The second stage involved systematic sampling of households. A household listing operation was undertaken in all of the selected clusters, and a fixed number of 28 households per cluster was selected with an equal probability systematic selection process, for a total sample size of approximately 16,240 households. The household selection was carried out centrally at the NIPS data processing office. The survey teams only interviewed the pre-selected households. To prevent bias, no replacements and no changes to the pre-selected households were allowed at the implementing stages.

For further details on sample design, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Six questionnaires were used in the 2017-18 PDHS: Household Questionnaire, Woman’s Questionnaire, Man’s Questionnaire, Biomarker Questionnaire, Fieldworker Questionnaire, and the Community Questionnaire. The first five questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s standard Demographic and Health Survey (DHS-7) questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to Pakistan. The Community Questionnaire was based on the instrument used in the previous rounds of the Pakistan DHS. Comments were solicited from various stakeholders representing government ministries and agencies, nongovernmental organisations, and international donors. The survey protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Bioethics Committee, Pakistan Health Research Council, and ICF Institutional Review Board. After the questionnaires were finalised in English, they were translated into Urdu and Sindhi. The 2017-18 PDHS used paper-based questionnaires for data collection, while computerassisted field editing (CAFE) was used to edit the questionnaires in the field.

Cleaning operations

The processing of the 2017-18 PDHS data began simultaneously with the fieldwork. As soon as data collection was completed in each cluster, all electronic data files were transferred via IFSS to the NIPS central office in Islamabad. These data files were registered and checked for inconsistencies, incompleteness, and outliers. The field teams were alerted to any inconsistencies and errors. Secondary editing was carried out in the central office, which involved resolving inconsistencies and coding the openended questions. The NIPS data processing manager coordinated the exercise at the central office. The PDHS core team members assisted with the secondary editing. Data entry and editing were carried out using the CSPro software package. The concurrent processing of the data offered a distinct advantage as it maximised the likelihood of the data being error-free and accurate. The secondary editing of the data was completed in the first week of May 2018. The final cleaning of the data set was carried out by The DHS Program data processing specialist and completed on 25 May 2018.

Response rate

A total of 15,671 households were selected for the survey, of which 15,051 were occupied. The response rates are presented separately for Pakistan, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and Gilgit Baltistan. Of the 12,338 occupied households in Pakistan, 11,869 households were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 96%. Similarly, the household response rates were 98% in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 99% in Gilgit Baltistan.

In the interviewed households, 94% of ever-married women age 15-49 in Pakistan, 97% in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and 94% in Gilgit Baltistan were interviewed. In the subsample of households selected for the male survey, 87% of ever-married men age 15-49 in Pakistan, 94% in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and 84% in Gilgit Baltistan were successfully interviewed.

Overall, the response rates were lower in urban than in rural areas. The difference is slightly less pronounced for Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. The response rates for men are lower than those for women, as men are often away from their households for work.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2017-18 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey (2017-18 PDHS) to minimise this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2017-18 PDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that

PerCapita_CO2_Footprint_InDioceses_FULLBurhans, Molly A., Cheney, David M., Gerlt, R.. . “PerCapita_CO2_Footprint_InDioceses_FULL”. Scale not given. Version 1.0. MO and CT, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2019.MethodologyThis is the first global Carbon footprint of the Catholic population. We will continue to improve and develop these data with our research partners over the coming years. While it is helpful, it should also be viewed and used as a "beta" prototype that we and our research partners will build from and improve. The years of carbon data are (2010) and (2015 - SHOWN). The year of Catholic data is 2018. The year of population data is 2016. Care should be taken during future developments to harmonize the years used for catholic, population, and CO2 data.1. Zonal Statistics: Esri Population Data and Dioceses --> Population per dioceses, non Vatican based numbers2. Zonal Statistics: FFDAS and Dioceses and Population dataset --> Mean CO2 per Diocese3. Field Calculation: Population per Diocese and Mean CO2 per diocese --> CO2 per Capita4. Field Calculation: CO2 per Capita * Catholic Population --> Catholic Carbon FootprintAssumption: PerCapita CO2Deriving per-capita CO2 from mean CO2 in a geography assumes that people's footprint accounts for their personal lifestyle and involvement in local business and industries that are contribute CO2. Catholic CO2Assumes that Catholics and non-Catholic have similar CO2 footprints from their lifestyles.Derived from:A multiyear, global gridded fossil fuel CO2 emission data product: Evaluation and analysis of resultshttp://ffdas.rc.nau.edu/About.htmlRayner et al., JGR, 2010 - The is the first FFDAS paper describing the version 1.0 methods and results published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.Asefi et al., 2014 - This is the paper describing the methods and results of the FFDAS version 2.0 published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.Readme version 2.2 - A simple readme file to assist in using the 10 km x 10 km, hourly gridded Vulcan version 2.2 results.Liu et al., 2017 - A paper exploring the carbon cycle response to the 2015-2016 El Nino through the use of carbon cycle data assimilation with FFDAS as the boundary condition for FFCO2."S. Asefi‐Najafabady P. J. Rayner K. R. Gurney A. McRobert Y. Song K. Coltin J. Huang C. Elvidge K. BaughFirst published: 10 September 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021296 Cited by: 30Link to FFDAS data retrieval and visualization: http://hpcg.purdue.edu/FFDAS/index.phpAbstractHigh‐resolution, global quantification of fossil fuel CO2 emissions is emerging as a critical need in carbon cycle science and climate policy. We build upon a previously developed fossil fuel data assimilation system (FFDAS) for estimating global high‐resolution fossil fuel CO2 emissions. We have improved the underlying observationally based data sources, expanded the approach through treatment of separate emitting sectors including a new pointwise database of global power plants, and extended the results to cover a 1997 to 2010 time series at a spatial resolution of 0.1°. Long‐term trend analysis of the resulting global emissions shows subnational spatial structure in large active economies such as the United States, China, and India. These three countries, in particular, show different long‐term trends and exploration of the trends in nighttime lights, and population reveal a decoupling of population and emissions at the subnational level. Analysis of shorter‐term variations reveals the impact of the 2008–2009 global financial crisis with widespread negative emission anomalies across the U.S. and Europe. We have used a center of mass (CM) calculation as a compact metric to express the time evolution of spatial patterns in fossil fuel CO2 emissions. The global emission CM has moved toward the east and somewhat south between 1997 and 2010, driven by the increase in emissions in China and South Asia over this time period. Analysis at the level of individual countries reveals per capita CO2 emission migration in both Russia and India. The per capita emission CM holds potential as a way to succinctly analyze subnational shifts in carbon intensity over time. Uncertainties are generally lower than the previous version of FFDAS due mainly to an improved nightlight data set."Global Diocesan Boundaries:Burhans, M., Bell, J., Burhans, D., Carmichael, R., Cheney, D., Deaton, M., Emge, T. Gerlt, B., Grayson, J., Herries, J., Keegan, H., Skinner, A., Smith, M., Sousa, C., Trubetskoy, S. “Diocesean Boundaries of the Catholic Church” [Feature Layer]. Scale not given. Version 1.2. Redlands, CA, USA: GoodLands Inc., Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Using: ArcGIS. 10.4. Version 10.0. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2016.Boundary ProvenanceStatistics and Leadership DataCheney, D.M. “Catholic Hierarchy of the World” [Database]. Date Updated: August 2019. Catholic Hierarchy. Using: Paradox. Retrieved from Original Source.Catholic HierarchyAnnuario Pontificio per l’Anno .. Città del Vaticano :Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, Multiple Years.The data for these maps was extracted from the gold standard of Church data, the Annuario Pontificio, published yearly by the Vatican. The collection and data development of the Vatican Statistics Office are unknown. GoodLands is not responsible for errors within this data. We encourage people to document and report errant information to us at data@good-lands.org or directly to the Vatican.Additional information about regular changes in bishops and sees comes from a variety of public diocesan and news announcements.GoodLands’ polygon data layers, version 2.0 for global ecclesiastical boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church:Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided, due to this being the first developed dataset of global ecclesiastical boundaries curated from many sources it may have a higher margin of error than established geopolitical administrative boundary maps. Boundaries need to be verified with appropriate Ecclesiastical Leadership. The current information is subject to change without notice. No parties involved with the creation of this data are liable for indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the use of the information. We referenced 1960 sources to build our global datasets of ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Often, they were isolated images of dioceses, historical documents and information about parishes that were cross checked. These sources can be viewed here:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11ANlH1S_aYJOyz4TtG0HHgz0OLxnOvXLHMt4FVOS85Q/edit#gid=0To learn more or contact us please visit: https://good-lands.org/Esri Gridded Population Data 2016DescriptionThis layer is a global estimate of human population for 2016. Esri created this estimate by modeling a footprint of where people live as a dasymetric settlement likelihood surface, and then assigned 2016 population estimates stored on polygons of the finest level of geography available onto the settlement surface. Where people live means where their homes are, as in where people sleep most of the time, and this is opposed to where they work. Another way to think of this estimate is a night-time estimate, as opposed to a day-time estimate.Knowledge of population distribution helps us understand how humans affect the natural world and how natural events such as storms and earthquakes, and other phenomena affect humans. This layer represents the footprint of where people live, and how many people live there.Dataset SummaryEach cell in this layer has an integer value with the estimated number of people likely to live in the geographic region represented by that cell. Esri additionally produced several additional layers World Population Estimate Confidence 2016: the confidence level (1-5) per cell for the probability of people being located and estimated correctly. World Population Density Estimate 2016: this layer is represented as population density in units of persons per square kilometer.World Settlement Score 2016: the dasymetric likelihood surface used to create this layer by apportioning population from census polygons to the settlement score raster.To use this layer in analysis, there are several properties or geoprocessing environment settings that should be used:Coordinate system: WGS_1984. This service and its underlying data are WGS_1984. We do this because projecting population count data actually will change the populations due to resampling and either collapsing or splitting cells to fit into another coordinate system. Cell Size: 0.0013474728 degrees (approximately 150-meters) at the equator. No Data: -1Bit Depth: 32-bit signedThis layer has query, identify, pixel, and export image functions enabled, and is restricted to a maximum analysis size of 30,000 x 30,000 pixels - an area about the size of Africa.Frye, C. et al., (2018). Using Classified and Unclassified Land Cover Data to Estimate the Footprint of Human Settlement. Data Science Journal. 17, p.20. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2018-020.What can you do with this layer?This layer is unsuitable for mapping or cartographic use, and thus it does not include a convenient legend. Instead, this layer is useful for analysis, particularly for estimating counts of people living within watersheds, coastal areas, and other areas that do not have standard boundaries. Esri recommends using the Zonal Statistics tool or the Zonal Statistics to Table tool where you provide input zones as either polygons, or raster data, and the tool will summarize the count of population within those zones. https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-living-atlas/data-management/2016-world-population-estimate-services-are-now-available/

ABSTRACT Objective We aimed to identify the frequency of monogenic diabetes, which is poorly studied in multiethnic populations, due to GCK or HNF1A mutations in patients with suggestive clinical characteristics from the Brazilian population, as well as investigate if the MODY probability calculator (MPC) could help patients with their selection. Subjects and methods Inclusion criteria were patients with DM diagnosed before 35 years; body mass index < 30 kg/m2; negative autoantibodies; and family history of DM in two or more generations. We sequenced HNF1A in 27 patients and GCK in seven subjects with asymptomatic mild fasting hyperglycemia. In addition, we calculated MODY probability with MPC. Results We identified 11 mutations in 34 patients (32.3%). We found three novel mutations. In the GCK group, six cases had mutations (85.7%), and their MODY probability on MPC was higher than 50%. In the HNF1A group, five of 27 individuals had mutations (18.5%). The MPC was higher than 75% in 11 subjects (including all five cases with HNF1A mutations). Conclusion Approximately one third of the studied patients have GCK or HNF1A mutations. Inclusion criteria included efficiency in detecting patients with GCK mutations but not for HNF1A mutations (< 20%). MPC was helpful in narrowing the number of candidates for HNF1A screening.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Life Expectancy (EQ6)

FULL MEASURE NAME Life Expectancy

LAST UPDATED April 2017

DESCRIPTION Life expectancy refers to the average number of years a newborn is expected to live if mortality patterns remain the same. The measure reflects the mortality rate across a population for a point in time.

DATA SOURCE State of California, Department of Health: Death Records (1990-2013) No link

California Department of Finance: Population Estimates Annual Intercensal Population Estimates (1990-2010) Table P-2: County Population by Age (2010-2013) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census ZCTA Population (2000-2010) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2013) http://factfinder.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Life expectancy is commonly used as a measure of the health of a population. Life expectancy does not reflect how long any given individual is expected to live; rather, it is an artificial measure that captures an aspect of the mortality rates across a population that can be compared across time and populations. More information about the determinants of life expectancy that may lead to differences in life expectancy between neighborhoods can be found in the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) Health Inequities in the Bay Area report at http://www.barhii.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/barhii_hiba.pdf. Vital Signs measures life expectancy at birth (as opposed to cohort life expectancy). A statistical model was used to estimate life expectancy for Bay Area counties and ZIP Codes based on current life tables which require both age and mortality data. A life table is a table which shows, for each age, the survivorship of a people from a certain population.

Current life tables were created using death records and population estimates by age. The California Department of Public Health provided death records based on the California death certificate information. Records include age at death and residential ZIP Code. Single-year age population estimates at the regional- and county-level comes from the California Department of Finance population estimates and projections for ages 0-100+. Population estimates for ages 100 and over are aggregated to a single age interval. Using this data, death rates in a population within age groups for a given year are computed to form unabridged life tables (as opposed to abridged life tables). To calculate life expectancy, the probability of dying between the jth and (j+1)st birthday is assumed uniform after age 1. Special consideration is taken to account for infant mortality.

For the ZIP Code-level life expectancy calculation, it is assumed that postal ZIP Codes share the same boundaries as ZIP Code Census Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs). More information on the relationship between ZIP Codes and ZCTAs can be found at http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas.html. ZIP Code-level data uses three years of mortality data to make robust estimates due to small sample size. Year 2013 ZIP Code life expectancy estimates reflects death records from 2011 through 2013. 2013 is the last year with available mortality data. Death records for ZIP Codes with zero population (like those associated with P.O. Boxes) were assigned to the nearest ZIP Code with population. ZIP Code population for 2000 estimates comes from the Decennial Census. ZIP Code population for 2013 estimates are from the American Community Survey (5-Year Average). ACS estimates are adjusted using Decennial Census data for more accurate population estimates. An adjustment factor was calculated using the ratio between the 2010 Decennial Census population estimates and the 2012 ACS 5-Year (with middle year 2010) population estimates. This adjustment factor is particularly important for ZCTAs with high homeless population (not living in group quarters) where the ACS may underestimate the ZCTA population and therefore underestimate the life expectancy. The ACS provides ZIP Code population by age in five-year age intervals. Single-year age population estimates were calculated by distributing population within an age interval to single-year ages using the county distribution. Counties were assigned to ZIP Codes based on majority land-area.

ZIP Codes in the Bay Area vary in population from over 10,000 residents to less than 20 residents. Traditional life expectancy estimation (like the one used for the regional- and county-level Vital Signs estimates) cannot be used because they are highly inaccurate for small populations and may result in over/underestimation of life expectancy. To avoid inaccurate estimates, ZIP Codes with populations of less than 5,000 were aggregated with neighboring ZIP Codes until the merged areas had a population of more than 5,000. ZIP Code 94103, representing Treasure Island, was dropped from the dataset due to its small population and having no bordering ZIP Codes. In this way, the original 305 Bay Area ZIP Codes were reduced to 217 ZIP Code areas for 2013 estimates. Next, a form of Bayesian random-effects analysis was used which established a prior distribution of the probability of death at each age using the regional distribution. This prior is used to shore up the life expectancy calculations where data were sparse.

As of 2024, South Africa's population increased, counting approximately 63 million inhabitants. Of these, roughly 27.5 million were aged 0-24, while 654,000 people were 80 years or older. Gauteng and Cape Town are the most populated South Africa’s yearly population growth has been fluctuating since 2013, with the growth rate dropping below the world average in 2024. The majority of people lived in the borders of Gauteng, the smallest of the nine provinces in terms of land area. The number of people residing there amounted to 16.6 million in 2023. Although the Western Cape was the third-largest province, the city of Cape Town had the highest number of inhabitants in the country, at 3.4 million. An underemployed younger population South Africa has a large population under 14, who will be looking for job opportunities in the future. However, the country's labor market has had difficulty integrating these youngsters. Specifically, as of the fourth quarter of 2024, the unemployment rate reached close to 60 percent and 384 percent among people aged 15-24 and 25–34 years, respectively. In the same period, some 27 percent of the individuals between 15 and 24 years were economically active, while the labor force participation rate was higher among people aged 25 to 34, at 74.3 percent.

Abstract The dataset was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme. This dataset was derived from multiple datasets. You can find a link to the parent datasets in the Lineage Field in this metadata statement. The History Field in this metadata statement describes how this dataset was derived. This dataset shows the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Mesh Blocks across Victoria, with the 2011 census population and housing counts attached as attributes. It was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme from the ABS Mesh Block Population Counts Aus 2011 dataset, and the ABS Boundaries 2011 dataset. The source datasets are identified in the Lineage field in this metadata statement. The processes undertaken to produce this derived dataset are described in the History field in this metadata statement. ## Dataset History The ABS 2011 Mesh Block Population Count spreadsheet (https://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/datastore/dataset/ee39fa76-db4e-412a-af0a-115d965b5813) was joined to the Victorian ABS Mesh Block boundaries (https://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/datastore/dataset/8b65c3a4-7010-4a79-8eaa-5621b750347f) using the unique MB_CODE11 field within ESRI ArcMap 10.2. Two additional fields were added to show Mesh Block Area (km2) and Population Density (people/km2). These field values were calculated within ESRI ArcMap 10.2 using the Field Calculator tool. ## Dataset Citation Bioregional Assessment Programme (2014) Victorian ABS Mesh Block Population 2011. Bioregional Assessment Derived Dataset. Viewed 29 September 2017, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/b27fdf82-dd1e-4841-a228-21f671a95368. ## Dataset Ancestors * Derived From ABS Mesh Block Population Counts Aus 2011 * Derived From ABS Boundaries 2011

De GLA Population Yield Calculator is een hulpmiddel voor het schatten van de opbrengst van nieuwe woningen. De rekenmachine geeft gebruikers een indicatie van het mogelijke aantal en de leeftijd van kinderen die naar verwachting in een nieuwe woningontwikkeling van een bepaalde slaapkamer of tenure mix zullen leven.

Zie het methodiekdocument van de calculator voor meer details en gebruikersbegeleiding.

De rekenmachine is in XLSX (Excel 2007 en hoger) formaat.

De tool is bijgewerkt op 23 oktober 2019.

Voorheen gepubliceerde versies zijn beschikbaar in het gecomprimeerde archiefbestand

Rising sea levels (SLR) will cause coastal groundwater to rise in many coastal urban environments. Inundation of contaminated soils by groundwater rise (GWR) will alter the physical, biological, and geochemical conditions that influence the fate and transport of existing contaminants. These transformed products can be more toxic and/or more mobile under future conditions driven by SLR and GWR. We reviewed the vulnerability of contaminated sites to GWR in a US national database and in a case comparison with the San Francisco Bay region to estimate the risk of rising groundwater to human and ecosystem health. The results show that 326 sites in the US Superfund program may be vulnerable to changes in groundwater depth or flow direction as a result of SLR, representing 18.1 million hectares of contaminated land. In the San Francisco Bay Area, we found that GWR is predicted to impact twice as much coastal land area as inundation from SLR alone, and 5,297 state-managed sites of contamination may be vulnerable to inundation from GWR in a 1-meter SLR scenario. Increases of only a few centimeters of elevation can mobilize soil contaminants, alter flow directions in a heterogeneous urban environment with underground pipes and utility trenches, and result in new exposure pathways. Pumping for flood protection will elevate the salt water interface, changing groundwater salinity and mobilizing metals in soil. Socially vulnerable communities are more exposed to this risk at both the national scale and in a regional comparison with the San Francisco Bay Area. Methods Data Dryad This data set includes data from the California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the USGS, the US EPA, and the US Census. National Assessment Data Processing: For this portion of the project, ArcGIS Pro and RStudio software applications were used. Data processing for superfund site contaminants in the text and supplementary materials was done in RStudio using R programming language. RStudio and R were also used to clean population data from the American Community Survey. Packages used include: Dplyr, data.table, and tidyverse to clean and organize data from the EPA and ACS. ArcGIS Pro was used to compute spatial data regarding sites in the risk zone and vulnerable populations. DEM data processed for each state removed any elevation data above 10m, keeping anything 10m and below. The Intersection tool was used to identify superfund sites within the 10m sea level rise risk zone. The Calculate Geometry tool was used to calculate the area within each coastal state that was occupied by the 10m SLR zone and used again to calculate the area of each superfund site. Summary Statistics were used to generate the total proportion of superfund site surface area / 10m SLR area for each state. To generate population estimates of socially vulnerable households in proximity to superfund sites, we followed methods similar to that of Carter and Kalman (2020). First, we generated buffers at the 1km, 3km, and 5km distance of superfund sites. Then, using Tabulate Intersection, the estimated population of each census block group within each buffer zone was calculated. Summary Statistics were used to generate total numbers for each state. Bay Area Data Processing: In this regional study, we compared the groundwater elevation projections by Befus et al (2020) to a combined dataset of contaminated sites that we built from two separate databases (Envirostor and GeoTracker) that are maintained by two independent agencies of the State of California (DTSC and WRCB). We used ArcGIS to manage both the groundwater surfaces, as raster files, from Befus et al (2020) and the State’s point datasets of street addresses for contaminated sites. We used SF BCDC (2020) as the source of social vulnerability rankings for census blocks, using block shapefiles from the US Census (ACS) dataset. In addition, we generated isolines that represent the magnitude of change in groundwater elevation in specific sea level rise scenarios. We compared these isolines of change in elevation to the USGS geological map of the San Francisco Bay region and noted that groundwater is predicted to rise farther inland where Holocene paleochannels meet artificial fill near the shoreline. We also used maps of historic baylands (altered by dikes and fill) from the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to identify the number of contaminated sites over rising groundwater that are located on former mudflats and tidal marshes. The contaminated sites' data from the California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) was clipped to our study area of nine-bay area counties. The study area does not include the ocean shorelines or the north bay delta area because the water system dynamics differ in deltas. The data was cleaned of any duplicates within each dataset using the Find Identical and Delete Identical tools. Then duplicates between the two datasets were removed by running the intersect tool for the DTSC and WRCB point data. We chose this method over searching for duplicates by name because some sites change names when management is transferred from DTSC to WRCB. Lastly, the datasets were sorted into open and closed sites based on the DTSC and WRCB classifications which are shown in a table in the paper's supplemental material. To calculate areas of rising groundwater, we used data from the USGS paper “Projected groundwater head for coastal California using present-day and future sea-level rise scenarios” by Befus, K. M., Barnard, P., Hoover, D. J., & Erikson, L. (2020). We used the hydraulic conductivity of 1 condition (Kh1) to calculate areas of rising groundwater. We used the Raster Calculator to subtract the existing groundwater head from the groundwater head under a 1-meter of sea level rise scenario to find the areas where groundwater is rising. Using the Reclass Raster tool, we reclassified the data to give every cell with a value of 0.1016 meters (4”) or greater a value of 1. We chose 0.1016 because groundwater rise of that little can leach into pipes and infrastructure. We then used the Raster to Poly tool to generate polygons of areas of groundwater rise.

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.

For the floods in Southern Malawi of March 2019, we have combined flood extent maps (Sentinel) with HRSL settlement/population grid. This results in a calculation of # of affected buildings/people per district. The results is shared through maps and in a shapefile.

1. Data sources

Sentinel 1

Imagery from 7th of March 2017

Sentinel 2

Imagery from 10th/12th/14th of March 2017

HRSL population data

Facebook Connectivity Lab and Center for International Earth Science Information Network - CIESIN - Columbia University. 2016. High Resolution Settlement Layer (HRSL). Source imagery for HRSL © 2016 DigitalGlobe. Accessed 9 March 2019.

2. Good to know

The flood extent for Nsanje district was separately added on March 14th, to the existing flood extent for the main area from March 12th.

3. Methodology

A. Flood Extent Based on SAR

The following steps were used to detect flood extent(water/no water). In SNAP tool the raw data downloaded from sci-hub Copernicus was processed to calibrate image for atmospheric correction, spike filter and terrain correction(This is mainly for Sentinel 1 data). Finally defining water no water based on a threshold applied on the corrected image. Defining a threshold is always a challenge in SAR image analysis for flood detection, we collected data from the field to define this threshold. For Sentinel 2 as a first step cloud filter was calculated by applying a combined threshold on Band 2 and Band 10. The cloud mask shown in the figure below didn’t capture shadows of clouds, these were miss interpreted by the flood algorithm as water/flood. To correct this areas with more cloud cover were clipped out with a polygon. To define water no water based on sentinel data we used NDWI index, the treshold is adjusted based on data collected from the field Validation points were collected by Field team tested different values and check if the threshold identified fits with observation. The complete methodology how to detect flooding based on Sentinel 1 data and SNAP toolbox is documented in ESA website.

B. Affected People

To calculate number of affected people per each admin level, flood extent map is combined with HRSL population data. This is done in two steps: First, in step 1, we calculate a raster, which multiplies the population grid with the flood grid, such that we are left with only "population in flooded area". This is done using raster calculator where population density raster was multiplied by flood extent raster, which has a value of 0 for no flood and 1 for flood areas. Note that the flood extent grid was first resampled to match it to the population grid. This whole exercise is repeated for settlement/buildings instead of population. Step 2: We apply zonal statistics per TA to calculate total number of buildings/people affected in each admin level. For each Admin level2 estimated number of affected people and affected houses are plotted in the map. The zonal statistics data used for plotting can be found in the shape file.

This data set includes generalized structural equation models (SEM) for the parental populations and hybrid populations in Stata 18, code for figures in R and data in CSV format. We used SEM over linear regression in order to also generate estimates of the errors and unexplained variance of the midpoint value of the parents. First, we encoded sex, nuclear genome composition, collection cohort, days in lab after collection, and arena as variables in both models. For the hybrid model, we also added terms for mitochondrial genome and interaction terms between sex and nuclear genome composition because we observed a different trend in sex differences for one population. Separate SEM equations were necessary since parental populations were perfectly colinear with mitochondrial type, whereas F1 hybrids were not. Since observations were grouped by arena and trial, we utilized a clustered standard error calculator when combining both models to allow for different variance between populations. After, we tested the linear combinations of the means to determine if F1 hybrids performed significantly different from the midpoint value of the two parental populations. By using the estimates from the SEM, we were able to include the estimated error from the models into the equation as well. Lastly, we tested the linear combinations of the means to determine if the reciprocal crosses of F1 hybrids performed significantly differently from each other. Methods Copepods were collected from four locations along the California coastline in December 2019 and August 2021 under collection permits S-192510001-19262-001 and S-192510001-21127-001. All copepods were then transported to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where they were maintained for experiments. Gravid females from each population were transferred to petri dishes with artificial sea water (ASW) and stored in a 12L:12D light cycle at 20°C for at least one month (equivalent to one generation) prior to testing. Salinity was adjusted to 35 ppt, and ground commercial fish flakes, which served as food, were added ad libitum every other week. F1 hybrids were generated by placing virgin females of one population with virgin males from a second population. Copepods were grouped by sex and population then placed in aggregates of 5 into arenas of a water bath. Temperature was maintained at 20°C by a cooling tower that circulated chilled water through the water bath, and the water bath was kept inside a custom-built glove box. An air stone placed in the water bath was used to deliver gas into the water continuously. Nitrogen gas was delivered to the water bath until the dissolved oxygen level reached 0.05 mg/L or less and maintained for 20 hours, then atmospheric air was delivered for 10 hours. At the end of the assay, copepods were prodded gently with a needle probe to prompt a swimming response, and, if copepods did not swim away, they were assumed to be dead. After each assay, all copepods were sacrificed, individually lysed, and genotyped. After lysis, a portion of the mitochondrial DNA was amplified via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using population specific primers. Any confirmed heteroplasmic individuals were excluded from further analysis.