Explore global rankings in the education and health sectors for government, private companies, non-profit organizations, and universities.

Education, World Rankings, government, Health, Private, Sector, Companies, Non-Profit, Universities, Higher education sectors, other

World

Follow data.kapsarc.org for timely data to advance energy economics research.

Notes: The SIR reports are not league tables. The ranking parameter –the scientific output of institutions- should be understood as a default rank, not our ranking proposal. The only goal of this report is to characterize research outcomes of organizations so as to provide useful scientometric information to institutions, policymakers and research manager so they are able to analyze, evaluate and improve their research results. If someone uses this report to rank institutions or to build a league table with any purpose, he/she will do it under his/her own responsibility.Output - Total number of documents published in scholarly journals indexed in Scopus (Romo-Fernández, et al., 2011).International Collaboration - Institution's output ratio produced in collaboration with foreign institutions. The values are computed by analyzing an institution's output whose affiliations include more than one country address (Guerrero-Bote, Olmeda-Gómez and Moya-Anegón, 2013; Lancho-Barrantes, Guerrero-Bote and Moya-Anegón, 2013; Lancho-Barrantes, et al., 2013; Chinchilla-Rodríguez, et al., 2012)Normalized Impact - Normalized Impact is computed using the methodology established by the Karolinska Intitutet in Sweden where it is named "Item oriented field normalized citation score average". The normalization of the citation values is done on an individual article level. The values (in %) show the relationship between an institution's average scientific impact and the world average set to a score of 1, --i.e. a NI score of 0.8 means the institution is cited 20% below world average and 1.3 means the institution is cited 30% above average (Rehn and Kronman, 2008; González-Pereira, Guerrero-Bote and Moya- Anegón, 2011).High Quality Publications - Ratio of publications that an institution publishes in the most influential scholarly journals of the world, those ranked in the first quartile (25%) in their categories as ordered by SCImago Journal Rank (SJRII) indicator (Miguel, Chinchilla-Rodríguez and Moya-Anegón, 2011).Specialization Index - The Specialization Index indicates the extent of thematic concentration /dispersion of an institution’s scientific output. Values range between 0 and 1, indicating generalist vs. specialized institutions respectively. This indicator is computed according to the Gini Index used in Economy (Moed, et. al., 2011; López-Illescas, Moya-Anegón and Moed, 2011; Arencibia-Jorge et al., 2012). In this indicator, when the value is 0 it means that the data are not sufficient to calculate.Excellence Rate - Excellence rate indicates the amount (in %) of an institution’s scientific output that is included into the set of the 10% of the most cited papers in their respective scientific fields. It is a measure of high quality output of research institutions (SCImago Lab, 2011; Bornmann, Moya-Anegón and Leydesdorff, 2012; Guerrero-Bote and Moya-Anegón, 2012).Scientific Leadership - Leadership indicates an institution’s “output as main contributor”, that is the number of papers in which the corresponding author belongs to the institution (Moya-Anegón, 2012; Moya-Anegón et. al, 2013; Moya-Anegón, et al., forthcoming) Excellence with Leadership - Excellence with Leadership indicates the amount of documents in the Excellence rate in which the institution is the main contributor (Moya-Anegón, et al., 2013).

Explore the Ease of Doing Business Rankings dataset.Economies are ranked on their ease of doing business, from 1–190. A high ease of doing business ranking means the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm. The rankings are determined by sorting the aggregate scores on 10 topics, each consisting of several indicators, giving equal weight to each topic. The rankings for all economies are benchmarked to May 2019.

Abstract

South African policymakers are endeavouring to ensure that the poor have better access to financial services. However, a lack of understanding of the financial needs of poor households impedes a broad strategy to attend to this need.
The Financial Diaries study addresses this knowledge gap by examining financial management in rural and urban households. The study is a year-long household survey based on fortnightly interviews in Diepsloot (Gauteng), Langa (Western Cape) and Lugangeni (Eastern Cape). In total, 160 households were involved in this pioneering study which promises to offer important insights into how poor people manage their money as well as the context in which poor people make financial decisions. The study paints a rich picture of the texture of financial markets in townships, highlighting the prevalence of informal financial products, the role of survivalist business and the contribution made by social grants. The Financial Diaries dataset includes highly detailed, daily cash flow data on income, expenditure and financial flows on both a household and individual basis.

Geographic coverage

Langa in Cape Town, Diepsloot in Johannesburg and Lugangeni, a rural village in the Eastern Cape

Analysis unit

Units of analysis in the Financial Diaries Study 2003-2004 include households and individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

To create the sampling frame for the Financial Diaries, the researchers echoed the method used in the Rutherford (2002) and Ruthven (2002), a participatory wealth ranking (PWR). Within South Africa, the participatory wealth ranking method is used by the Small Enterprise Foundation (SEF), a prominent NGO microlender based in the rural Limpopo Province. Simanowitz (1999) compared the PWR method to the Visual Indicator of Poverty (VIP) and found that the VIP test was seen to be at best 70% consistent with the PWR tests. At times one third of the list of households that were defined as the poorest by the VIP test was actually some of the richest according to the PWR. The PWR method was also implicitly assessed in van der Ruit, May and Roberts (2001) by comparing it to the Principle Components Analysis (PCA) used by CGAP as a means to assess client poverty. They found that three quarters of those defined as poor by the PCA were also defined as poor by the PWR. We closely followed the SEF manual to conduct our wealth rankings, and consulted with SEF on adapting the method to urban areas.

The first step is to consult with community leaders and ask how they would divide their community. Within each type of areas, representative neighbourhoods of about 100 households each were randomly chosen. Townships in South Africa are organised by street - with each street or zone having its own street committee. The street committees are meant to know everyone on their street and to serve as stewards of all activity within the street. Each street committee in each area was invited to a central meeting and asked to map their area and give a roster of household names. Following the mapping, each area was visited and the maps and rosters were checked by going door to door with the street committee.

Two references groups were then selected from the street committee and senior members of the community with between four and eight people in each reference group. Each reference group was first asked to indicate how they define a poor household versus those that are well off. This discussion had a dual purpose. First, it relayed information about what each community believes is rich or poor. Second, it started the reference group thinking about which households belong under which heading.

Following this discussion, each reference group then ranked each household in the neighbourhood according to their perceived wealth. The SEF methodology of wealth ranking is de-normalised in that reference groups are invited to put households into as many different wealth piles as they feel in appropriate. Only households that are known by both reference groups were kept in the sample.

The SEF guidelines were used to assign a score to each household in a particular pile. The scores were created by dividing 100 by the number of piles multiplied by the level of the pile. This means that if the poorest pile was number 1, then every household in the pile was assigned a score of 100, representing 100% poverty. If the wealthiest pile was pile number 6, then every household in that pile received a score of 16.7 and every household in pile 5 received a score of 33.3. An average score for both reference groups was taken for the distribution.

One way of assessing how good the results are is to analyse how consistent the rankings were between the two reference groups. According to the SEF methodology, a result is consistent if the scores between the two reference groups have no more than a 25 points difference. A result is inconsistent if the difference between the scores is between 26 and 50 points while a result is unreliable is the difference between the scores is above 50 points. SEF uses both consistent and inconsistent rankings, as long as they use the average across two reference groups - this would mean that 91% of the sample could be used. However, because only used two reference groups were used, only the consistent household for the final sample selection was considered.

To test this further,the number of times that the reference groups put a household in the exact same category was counted. The extent of agreement at either end of the wealth spectrum between the two reference groups was also assessed. This result would be unbiased by how many categories the reference groups put households into.

Following the example used in India and Bangladesh, the sample was divided into three different wealth categories depending on the household's overall score. Making a distinction between three different categories of wealth allowed the following of a similar ranking of wealth to Bangladesh and India, but also it kept the sample from being over-stratified. A sample of 60 households each was then drawn randomly from each area. To draw the sample based on a proportion representation of each wealth ranking within the population would likely leave the sample lacking in wealthier households of some rankings to draw conclusions. Therefore the researchers drew equally from each ranking.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

In scientific research, assessing the impact and influence of authors is crucial for evaluating their scholarly contributions. Whereas in literature, multitudinous parameters have been developed to quantify the productivity and significance of researchers, including the publication count, citation count, well-known h index and its extensions and variations. However, with a plethora of available assessment metrics, it is vital to identify and prioritize the most effective metrics. To address the complexity of this task, we employ a powerful deep learning technique known as the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) classifier for the classification and the ranking purposes. By leveraging the MLP’s capacity to discern patterns within datasets, we assign importance scores to each parameter using the proposed modified recursive elimination technique. Based on the importance scores, we ranked these parameters. Furthermore, in this study, we put forth a comprehensive statistical analysis of the top-ranked author assessment parameters, encompassing a vast array of 64 distinct metrics. This analysis gives us treasured insights in between these parameters, shedding light on the potential correlations and dependencies that may affect assessment outcomes. In the statistical analysis, we combined these parameters by using seven well-known statistical methods, such as arithmetic means, harmonic means, geometric means etc. After combining the parameters, we sorted the list of each pair of parameters and analyzed the top 10, 50, and 100 records. During this analysis, we counted the occurrence of the award winners. For experimental proposes, data collection was done from the field of Mathematics. This dataset consists of 525 individuals who are yet to receive their awards along with 525 individuals who have been recognized as potential award winners by certain well known and prestigious scientific societies belonging to the fields’ of mathematics in the last three decades. The results of this study revealed that, in ranking of the author assessment parameters, the normalized h index achieved the highest importance score as compared to the remaining sixty-three parameters. Furthermore, the statistical analysis results revealed that the Trigonometric Mean (TM) outperformed the other six statistical models. Moreover, based on the analysis of the parameters, specifically the M Quotient and FG index, it is evident that combining these parameters with any other parameter using various statistical models consistently produces excellent results in terms of the percentage score for returning awardees.

Context

This dataset is the result of my study on web-scraping of English Wikipedia in R and my tests on regression and classification modelization in R.

Content

The content is create by reading the appropriate articles in English Wikipedia about Italian cities: I did'nt run NPL analisys but only the table with the data and I ranked every city from 0 to N in every aspect. About the values, 0 means "*the city is not ranked in this aspect*" and N means "*the city is at first place, in descending order of importance, in this aspect* ". If there's no ranking in a particular aspect (for example, the only existence of the airports/harbours with no additional data about the traffic or the size), then 0 means "*no existence*" and N means "*there are N airports/harbours*". The only not-numeric column is the column with the name of the cities in English form, except some exceptions (for example, "*Bra (CN)* " because of simplicity.

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the Wikimedia Foundation for his work, his mission and to make available the cover image of this dataset, (please read the article "The Ideal city (painting)") . I acknowledge too StackOverflow and Cross-Validated to be the most important focus of technical knowledge in the world, all the people in Kaggle for the suggestions.

Inspiration

As a beginner in data analisys and modelization (Ok, I passed the exam of statistics in Politecnico di Milano (Italy), but there are more than 10 years that I don't work in this topic and my memory is getting old ^_^) I worked more on data clean, dataset building and building the simplest modelization.

You can use this datase to realize which city is good to live or to expand this to add some other data from Wikipedia (not only reading the tables but too to read the text adn extrapolate the data from the meaningless text.)

In scientific research, assessing the impact and influence of authors is crucial for evaluating their scholarly contributions. Whereas in literature, multitudinous parameters have been developed to quantify the productivity and significance of researchers, including the publication count, citation count, well-known h index and its extensions and variations. However, with a plethora of available assessment metrics, it is vital to identify and prioritize the most effective metrics. To address the complexity of this task, we employ a powerful deep learning technique known as the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) classifier for the classification and the ranking purposes. By leveraging the MLP’s capacity to discern patterns within datasets, we assign importance scores to each parameter using the proposed modified recursive elimination technique. Based on the importance scores, we ranked these parameters. Furthermore, in this study, we put forth a comprehensive statistical analysis of the top-ranked author assessment parameters, encompassing a vast array of 64 distinct metrics. This analysis gives us treasured insights in between these parameters, shedding light on the potential correlations and dependencies that may affect assessment outcomes. In the statistical analysis, we combined these parameters by using seven well-known statistical methods, such as arithmetic means, harmonic means, geometric means etc. After combining the parameters, we sorted the list of each pair of parameters and analyzed the top 10, 50, and 100 records. During this analysis, we counted the occurrence of the award winners. For experimental proposes, data collection was done from the field of Mathematics. This dataset consists of 525 individuals who are yet to receive their awards along with 525 individuals who have been recognized as potential award winners by certain well known and prestigious scientific societies belonging to the fields’ of mathematics in the last three decades. The results of this study revealed that, in ranking of the author assessment parameters, the normalized h index achieved the highest importance score as compared to the remaining sixty-three parameters. Furthermore, the statistical analysis results revealed that the Trigonometric Mean (TM) outperformed the other six statistical models. Moreover, based on the analysis of the parameters, specifically the M Quotient and FG index, it is evident that combining these parameters with any other parameter using various statistical models consistently produces excellent results in terms of the percentage score for returning awardees.

Metagenomics is revolutionizing our understanding of microbial communities, showing that their structure and composition have profound effects on the ecosystem and in a variety of health and disease conditions. Despite the flourishing of new analysis methods, current approaches based on statistical comparisons between high-level taxonomic classes often fail to identify the microbial taxa that are differentially distributed between sets of samples, since in many cases the taxonomic schema do not allow an adequate description of the structure of the microbiota. This constitutes a severe limitation to the use of metagenomic data in therapeutic and diagnostic applications. To provide a more robust statistical framework, we introduce a class of feature-weighting algorithms that discriminate the taxa responsible for the classification of metagenomic samples. The method unambiguously groups the relevant taxa into clades without relying on pre-defined taxonomic categories, thus including in the analysis also those sequences for which a taxonomic classification is difficult. The phylogenetic clades are weighted and ranked according to their abundance measuring their contribution to the differentiation of the classes of samples, and a criterion is provided to define a reduced set of most relevant clades. Applying the method to public datasets, we show that the data-driven definition of relevant phylogenetic clades accomplished by our ranking strategy identifies features in the samples that are lost if phylogenetic relationships are not considered, improving our ability to mine metagenomic datasets. Comparison with supervised classification methods currently used in metagenomic data analysis highlights the advantages of using phylogenetic information.

In scientific research, assessing the impact and influence of authors is crucial for evaluating their scholarly contributions. Whereas in literature, multitudinous parameters have been developed to quantify the productivity and significance of researchers, including the publication count, citation count, well-known h index and its extensions and variations. However, with a plethora of available assessment metrics, it is vital to identify and prioritize the most effective metrics. To address the complexity of this task, we employ a powerful deep learning technique known as the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) classifier for the classification and the ranking purposes. By leveraging the MLP’s capacity to discern patterns within datasets, we assign importance scores to each parameter using the proposed modified recursive elimination technique. Based on the importance scores, we ranked these parameters. Furthermore, in this study, we put forth a comprehensive statistical analysis of the top-ranked author assessment parameters, encompassing a vast array of 64 distinct metrics. This analysis gives us treasured insights in between these parameters, shedding light on the potential correlations and dependencies that may affect assessment outcomes. In the statistical analysis, we combined these parameters by using seven well-known statistical methods, such as arithmetic means, harmonic means, geometric means etc. After combining the parameters, we sorted the list of each pair of parameters and analyzed the top 10, 50, and 100 records. During this analysis, we counted the occurrence of the award winners. For experimental proposes, data collection was done from the field of Mathematics. This dataset consists of 525 individuals who are yet to receive their awards along with 525 individuals who have been recognized as potential award winners by certain well known and prestigious scientific societies belonging to the fields’ of mathematics in the last three decades. The results of this study revealed that, in ranking of the author assessment parameters, the normalized h index achieved the highest importance score as compared to the remaining sixty-three parameters. Furthermore, the statistical analysis results revealed that the Trigonometric Mean (TM) outperformed the other six statistical models. Moreover, based on the analysis of the parameters, specifically the M Quotient and FG index, it is evident that combining these parameters with any other parameter using various statistical models consistently produces excellent results in terms of the percentage score for returning awardees.

This is the data and code related to paperEnhancing Spatial Count Data Modeling: A new method for Poisson Means of Stratified NonhomogeneityAbstract: Spatial count data is a prevalent data type in natural and social sciences. As the data present complicated spatial autocorrelation and heterogeneity inherent in geographical analysis, current methods lack a theoretical approach to model and predict the count data, especially with limited spatial samples. To address the gap, this study develops a new method named Poisson Means of Stratified Nonhomogeneity (PoiMSN). It theoretically considers both autocorrelation and heterogeneity, and without any covariate, incorporates local samples and out-stratum neighbors that traditional methods neglected, to accurately model and predict the latent process for Poisson distributed data. PoiMSN, compared to Poisson geostatistics and traditional MSN, was validated by simulation. It demonstrated superior performance, achieving the lowest mean absolute error and root-mean-squared error, with at least 5% improvement in accuracy for autocorrelated and stratified Poisson data. The application to hand, foot, mouth disease data showed PoiMSN could precisely map the disease risks with lower uncertainty. PoiMSN has the ability to accommodate autocorrelated and heterogeneous statistical population and leverage extensive sample information, substantiating its theoretical and empirical superiority in spatially non-stationary count data.

The real per capita cosumer spending ranking is led by Iran with *********** U.S. dollars, while Vietnam is following with ************* U.S. dollars. In contrast, Zimbabwe is at the bottom of the ranking with **** U.S. dollars, showing a difference of ************** U.S. dollars to Iran. Consumer spending, here depicted per capita, refers to the domestic demand of private households and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISHs). Spending by corporations and the state is not included. The forecast has been adjusted for the expected impact of COVID-19.Consumer spending is the biggest component of the gross domestic product as computed on an expenditure basis in the context of national accounts. The other components in this approach are consumption expenditure of the state, gross domestic investment as well as the net exports of goods and services. Consumer spending is broken down according to the United Nations' Classification of Individual Consumption By Purpose (COICOP). As not all countries and regions report data in a harmonized way, all data shown here has been processed by Statista to allow the greatest level of comparability possible. The underlying input data are usually household budget surveys conducted by government agencies that track spending of selected households over a given period.The data has been converted from local currencies to US$ using the average constant exchange rate of the base year 2017. The timelines therefore do not incorporate currency effects. The data is shown in real terms which means that monetary data is valued at constant prices of a given base year (in this case: 2017). To attain constant prices the nominal forecast has been deflated with the projected consumer price index for the respective category.

The United States is leading the ranking by number of high networth individuals , recording **** million individuals. Following closely behind is China with **** million individuals, while Lesotho is trailing the ranking with * thousand individuals, resulting in a difference of **** million individuals to the ranking leader, the United States. High Net Worth Individuals are here defined as persons with investible assets of at least *********** U.S. dollars in current exchange rate terms.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in more than *** countries and regions worldwide. All input data are sourced from international institutions, national statistical offices, and trade associations. All data has been are processed to generate comparable datasets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).

Top-ranking definitions of ageing among older people living in Parque Andreense (rural) and St Andre (urban) locations.

What is a Stand?

According to the Wiki definition, a Stand is a physical manifestation of a person's "life energy" . It is a power unique to the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure series. The series is well-known for its art style and poses; frequent references to Western popular music and fashion; and battles centered around Stands, psycho-spiritual manifestations with unique supernatural abilities.

A Stand is an entity psychically generated by its owner, referred to as a Stand User. It generally presents itself as an ethereal figure hovering over or near the user and possesses abilities beyond that of an ordinary human, which, depending on the Stand User, can be wielded for good or evil.

https://pa1.narvii.com/7112/922fd5de414f53af3fcb1d32edcc50b3de3f6137r1-500-275_hq.gif">

Content

This dataset contains every Stand that has appeared in JoJo's Bizzare Adventure and related media.

A list of stats were specifically gathered which define the baseline power level of the Stands. These are mainly categorized into 6 measures as follows:

1. Destructive Power (PWR): Measures the Stand's strength and ability to cause destruction (physical injury or collateral environmental damage) in a given period of time.
2. Speed (SPD): Measures the Stand's agility and reflexes as well as performance speed.
3. Range (RNG): Measures a compromise of the Stand's range of manifestation, range of ability influence, and spatial mobility.
4. Stamina (STA): Measures the duration of time that the Stand can actively maintain its ability. Long-Range Stands capable of operating remotely from their Users like Lovers and Empress are described as having high Stamina. This also applies to Materialized Stands like Yellow Temperance and Atom Heart Father that can bind to objects for long periods of time.
5. Precision (PRC): Measures the Stand's accuracy and range of influence/effect of their abilities to specified targets. Automatic type Stands are generally evaluated with Rank D or under with a few exceptions.
6. Development Potential (DEV): Measures the Stand's possible functions, utilization of its abilities and powers, and capacity to improve its overall capabilities. It decreases in rank as the user masters their Stand.

Each statistic is ranked from A to E; though rankings of None and Infinite are also possible. If a rank is Unknown, it will show a question mark (?); this is usually because the Stand or its full capabilities have not yet/will not been revealed in the storyline. Rankings are defined as follows: - A: Very Good (超スゴイ Chō Sugoi) - B: Good (スゴイ Sugoi) - C: Average (人間と同じ Ningen to Onaji, lit. "Comparable to a Human") - D: Poor (ニガテ Nigate) - E: Very Poor (超ニガテ Chō Nigate)

Collection Methodology

The data was initially scraped from the jojowiki website followed by preliminary data cleaning process to ensure the contents of the dataset are meaningful and applicable for csv file export.