This data collection and its companion study, PUBLIC IMAGE OF COURTS, 1977: SPECIAL PUBLICS DATA (ICPSR 7704), were undertaken to explore attitudes toward courts and justice. These surveys sought to measure perceptions of and experiences with local, state, and federal courts as well as general attitudes toward the administration of justice and legal actors. The general objectives of the studies were to (1) determine levels of public knowledge of courts, (2) test reactions to situations that might, or might not, prompt recourse to courts, (3) determine the incidence, nature, and evaluations of court experience, (4) describe and account for evaluations of court performance, (5) indicate attitudes toward legal actors, and (6) indicate reactions to alternative means of dispute resolution. Two samples were drawn: a national sample of the general public and a "special publics" sample of judges, lawyers, and community leaders (ICPSR 7704). The 1,931 respondents in the general public sample were interviewed in person by the National Consumer Field Staff of Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc.
https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/privacy-policyhttps://www.marketreportanalytics.com/privacy-policy
The Alternative Data Services market is experiencing robust growth, driven by the increasing need for sophisticated investment strategies and enhanced decision-making across various sectors. The market's expansion is fueled by the rising availability of non-traditional data sources, such as web data, social media sentiment, and transactional information, offering valuable insights unavailable through traditional data methods. This allows businesses to gain a competitive edge through improved risk assessment, more accurate market predictions, and more effective customer segmentation. The BFSI (Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance) sector currently holds a significant market share, leveraging alternative data for credit scoring, fraud detection, and personalized financial products. However, the IT and Telecommunications, Retail and Logistics, and Industrial sectors are showing rapid adoption, further contributing to market growth. The preference for real-time data analysis is driving the demand for advanced analytical tools and platforms. While data privacy concerns and regulatory hurdles pose some challenges, the continuous development of innovative solutions and increasing awareness of the benefits of alternative data are mitigating these restraints. We project continued growth for the next decade, driven by increased investment in data analytics and the adoption of AI-powered solutions in this sector. The market segmentation reveals significant potential for expansion across various application areas. Credit card transactions and web data analysis currently dominate the types of alternative data used, but the increasing adoption of sentiment analysis and public data for market intelligence demonstrates a shift towards a more holistic approach to data utilization. The competitive landscape is characterized by a mix of established players and emerging technology companies. Established financial data providers are integrating alternative data into their existing offerings, while specialized firms focus on niche data sources and analytical capabilities. Geographic expansion is also a key driver, with North America currently holding the largest market share but strong growth potential evident in Asia-Pacific and other emerging markets. Continued technological advancements, coupled with expanding regulatory frameworks for data usage, will shape the future trajectory of the Alternative Data Services market.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset contains data collected during a study "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems" conducted by Martin Lnenicka (University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic), Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu, Estonia), Mariusz Luterek (University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland), Petar Milic (University of Pristina - Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia), Daniel Rudmark (Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden), Sebastian Neumaier (St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences, Austria), Karlo Kević (University of Zagreb, Croatia), Anneke Zuiderwijk (Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands), Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar (University of Granada, Granada, Spain).
As there is a lack of understanding of the elements that constitute different types of value-adding public data ecosystems and how these elements form and shape the development of these ecosystems over time, which can lead to misguided efforts to develop future public data ecosystems, the aim of the study is: (1) to explore how public data ecosystems have developed over time and (2) to identify the value-adding elements and formative characteristics of public data ecosystems. Using an exploratory retrospective analysis and a deductive approach, we systematically review 148 studies published between 1994 and 2023. Based on the results, this study presents a typology of public data ecosystems and develops a conceptual model of elements and formative characteristics that contribute most to value-adding public data ecosystems, and develops a conceptual model of the evolutionary generation of public data ecosystems represented by six generations called Evolutionary Model of Public Data Ecosystems (EMPDE). Finally, three avenues for a future research agenda are proposed.
This dataset is being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Understanding the development of public data ecosystems: from a conceptual model to a six-generation model of the evolution of public data ecosystems ", Telematics and Informatics*, and its Systematic Literature Review component that informs the study.
Description of the data in this data set
PublicDataEcosystem_SLR provides the structure of the protocol
Spreadsheet#1 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases and filtering out irrelevant studies
Spreadsheets #2 provides the protocol structure.
Spreadsheets #3 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies.
The information on each selected study was collected in four categories:(1) descriptive information,(2) approach- and research design- related information,(3) quality-related information,(4) HVD determination-related information
Descriptive Information
Article number
A study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet
Complete reference
The complete source information to refer to the study (in APA style), including the author(s) of the study, the year in which it was published, the study's title and other source information.
Year of publication
The year in which the study was published.
Journal article / conference paper / book chapter
The type of the paper, i.e., journal article, conference paper, or book chapter.
Journal / conference / book
Journal article, conference, where the paper is published.
DOI / Website
A link to the website where the study can be found.
Number of words
A number of words of the study.
Number of citations in Scopus and WoS
The number of citations of the paper in Scopus and WoS digital libraries.
Availability in Open Access
Availability of a study in the Open Access or Free / Full Access.
Keywords
Keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors (in the paper).
Relevance for our study (high / medium / low)
What is the relevance level of the paper for our study
Approach- and research design-related information
Approach- and research design-related information
Objective / Aim / Goal / Purpose & Research Questions
The research objective and established RQs.
Research method (including unit of analysis)
The methods used to collect data in the study, including the unit of analysis that refers to the country, organisation, or other specific unit that has been analysed such as the number of use-cases or policy documents, number and scope of the SLR etc.
Study’s contributions
The study’s contribution as defined by the authors
Qualitative / quantitative / mixed method
Whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach?
Availability of the underlying research data
Whether the paper has a reference to the public availability of the underlying research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data etc., or explains why these data are not openly shared?
Period under investigation
Period (or moment) in which the study was conducted (e.g., January 2021-March 2022)
Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, specify them
Does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If yes, what theory / concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study? (e.g., mentioned to explain a certain phenomenon, used as a framework for analysis, tested theory, theory mentioned in the future research section).
Quality-related information
Quality concerns
Whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited information about the research methods used)?
Public Data Ecosystem-related information
Public data ecosystem definition
How is the public data ecosystem defined in the paper and any other equivalent term, mostly infrastructure. If an alternative term is used, how is the public data ecosystem called in the paper?
Public data ecosystem evolution / development
Does the paper define the evolution of the public data ecosystem? If yes, how is it defined and what factors affect it?
What constitutes a public data ecosystem?
What constitutes a public data ecosystem (components & relationships) - their "FORM / OUTPUT" presented in the paper (general description with more detailed answers to further additional questions).
Components and relationships
What components does the public data ecosystem consist of and what are the relationships between these components? Alternative names for components - element, construct, concept, item, helix, dimension etc. (detailed description).
Stakeholders
What stakeholders (e.g., governments, citizens, businesses, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve?
Actors and their roles
What actors does the public data ecosystem involve? What are their roles?
Data (data types, data dynamism, data categories etc.)
What data do the public data ecosystem cover (is intended / designed for)? Refer to all data-related aspects, including but not limited to data types, data dynamism (static data, dynamic, real-time data, stream), prevailing data categories / domains / topics etc.
Processes / activities / dimensions, data lifecycle phases
What processes, activities, dimensions and data lifecycle phases (e.g., locate, acquire, download, reuse, transform, etc.) does the public data ecosystem involve or refer to?
Level (if relevant)
What is the level of the public data ecosystem covered in the paper? (e.g., city, municipal, regional, national (=country), supranational, international).
Other elements or relationships (if any)
What other elements or relationships does the public data ecosystem consist of?
Additional comments
Additional comments (e.g., what other topics affected the public data ecosystems and their elements, what is expected to affect the public data ecosystems in the future, what were important topics by which the period was characterised etc.).
New papers
Does the study refer to any other potentially relevant papers?
Additional references to potentially relevant papers that were found in the analysed paper (snowballing).
Format of the file.xls, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only), .docx
Licenses or restrictionsCC-BY
For more info, see README.txt
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Google Patents Public Data, provided by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, is a worldwide bibliographic and US full-text dataset of patent publications. Patent information accessibility is critical for examining new patents, informing public policy decisions, managing corporate investment in intellectual property, and promoting future scientific innovation. The growing number of available patent data sources means researchers often spend more time downloading, parsing, loading, syncing and managing local databases than conducting analysis. With these new datasets, researchers and companies can access the data they need from multiple sources in one place, thus spending more time on analysis than data preparation.
The Google Patents Public Data dataset contains a collection of publicly accessible, connected database tables for empirical analysis of the international patent system.
Data Origin: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/patents-public-data:patents
For more info, see the documentation at https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-user-experience-report/
“Google Patents Public Data” by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services and Google is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Banner photo by Helloquence on Unsplash
Not seeing a result you expected?
Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.
This data collection and its companion study, PUBLIC IMAGE OF COURTS, 1977: SPECIAL PUBLICS DATA (ICPSR 7704), were undertaken to explore attitudes toward courts and justice. These surveys sought to measure perceptions of and experiences with local, state, and federal courts as well as general attitudes toward the administration of justice and legal actors. The general objectives of the studies were to (1) determine levels of public knowledge of courts, (2) test reactions to situations that might, or might not, prompt recourse to courts, (3) determine the incidence, nature, and evaluations of court experience, (4) describe and account for evaluations of court performance, (5) indicate attitudes toward legal actors, and (6) indicate reactions to alternative means of dispute resolution. Two samples were drawn: a national sample of the general public and a "special publics" sample of judges, lawyers, and community leaders (ICPSR 7704). The 1,931 respondents in the general public sample were interviewed in person by the National Consumer Field Staff of Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc.