Excel spreadsheets by species (4 letter code is abbreviation for genus and species used in study, year 2010 or 2011 is year data collected, SH indicates data for Science Hub, date is date of file preparation). The data in a file are described in a read me file which is the first worksheet in each file. Each row in a species spreadsheet is for one plot (plant). The data themselves are in the data worksheet. One file includes a read me description of the column in the date set for chemical analysis. In this file one row is an herbicide treatment and sample for chemical analysis (if taken). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Olszyk , D., T. Pfleeger, T. Shiroyama, M. Blakely-Smith, E. Lee , and M. Plocher. Plant reproduction is altered by simulated herbicide drift toconstructed plant communities. ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, USA, 36(10): 2799-2813, (2017).

Sample data for exercises in Further Adventures in Data Cleaning.

Corpus consisting of 10,000 Facebook posts manually annotated on sentiment (2,587 positive, 5,174 neutral, 1,991 negative and 248 bipolar posts). The archive contains data and statistics in an Excel file (FBData.xlsx) and gold data in two text files with posts (gold-posts.txt) and labels (gols-labels.txt) on corresponding lines.

All low angle XRD raw data

Note: Reporting of new COVID-19 Case Surveillance data will be discontinued July 1, 2024, to align with the process of removing SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19 cases) from the list of nationally notifiable diseases. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, the dataset will no longer be updated.

Authorizations to collect certain public health data expired at the end of the U.S. public health emergency declaration on May 11, 2023. The following jurisdictions discontinued COVID-19 case notifications to CDC: Iowa (11/8/21), Kansas (5/12/23), Kentucky (1/1/24), Louisiana (10/31/23), New Hampshire (5/23/23), and Oklahoma (5/2/23). Please note that these jurisdictions will not routinely send new case data after the dates indicated. As of 7/13/23, case notifications from Oregon will only include pediatric cases resulting in death.

This case surveillance public use dataset has 12 elements for all COVID-19 cases shared with CDC and includes demographics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors, and no geographic data.

CDC has three COVID-19 case surveillance datasets:

• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data with Geography: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical data (including symptoms), demographics, and county and state of residence. (19 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data and demographics, with no geographic data. (12 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Access Detailed Data: Restricted access, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data, demographics, and state and county of residence. Access requires a registration process and a data use agreement. (33 data elements)

• Data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.
• Data are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.
• Some data cells are suppressed to protect individual privacy.
• The datasets will include all cases with the earliest date available in each record (date received by CDC or date related to illness/specimen collection) at least 14 days prior to the creation of the current datasets. This 14-day lag allows case reporting to be stabilized and ensures that time-dependent outcome data are accurately captured.
• Datasets are updated monthly.
• Datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access and include protections designed to protect individual privacy.
• For more information about data collection and reporting, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/about-us-cases-deaths.html.
• For more information about the COVID-19 case surveillance data, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html
  

Overview

The COVID-19 case surveillance database includes individual-level data reported to U.S. states and autonomous reporting entities, including New York City and the District of Columbia (D.C.), as well as U.S. territories and affiliates. On April 5, 2020, COVID-19 was added to the Nationally Notifiable Condition List and classified as “immediately notifiable, urgent (within 24 hours)” by a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) Interim Position Statement (Interim-20-ID-01). CSTE updated the position statement on August 5, 2020, to clarify the interpretation of antigen detection tests and serologic test results within the case classification (Interim-20-ID-02). The statement also recommended that all states and territories enact laws to make COVID-19 reportable in their jurisdiction, and that jurisdictions conducting surveillance should submit case notifications to CDC. COVID-19 case surveillance data are collected by jurisdictions and reported voluntarily to CDC.

For more information: NNDSS Supports the COVID-19 Response | CDC.

The deidentified data in the “COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data” include demographic characteristics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, clinical data, laboratory diagnostic test results, and presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors. All data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.

COVID-19 Case Reports

COVID-19 case reports have been routinely submitted using nationally standardized case reporting forms. On April 5, 2020, CSTE released an Interim Position Statement with national surveillance case definitions for COVID-19 included. Current versions of these case definitions are available here: https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/coronavirus-disease-2019-2021/.

All cases reported on or after were requested to be shared by public health departments to CDC using the standardized case definitions for laboratory-confirmed or probable cases. On May 5, 2020, the standardized case reporting form was revised. Case reporting using this new form is ongoing among U.S. states and territories.

Data are Considered Provisional

• The COVID-19 case surveillance data are dynamic; case reports can be modified at any time by the jurisdictions sharing COVID-19 data with CDC. CDC may update prior cases shared with CDC based on any updated information from jurisdictions. For instance, as new information is gathered about previously reported cases, health departments provide updated data to CDC. As more information and data become available, analyses might find changes in surveillance data and trends during a previously reported time window. Data may also be shared late with CDC due to the volume of COVID-19 cases.
• Annual finalized data: To create the final NNDSS data used in the annual tables, CDC works carefully with the reporting jurisdictions to reconcile the data received during the year until each state or territorial epidemiologist confirms that the data from their area are correct.
• Access Addressing Gaps in Public Health Reporting of Race and Ethnicity for COVID-19, a report from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to better understand the challenges in completing race and ethnicity data for COVID-19 and recommendations for improvement.

Data Limitations

To learn more about the limitations in using case surveillance data, visit FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Data Quality Assurance Procedures

CDC’s Case Surveillance Section routinely performs data quality assurance procedures (i.e., ongoing corrections and logic checks to address data errors). To date, the following data cleaning steps have been implemented:

• Questions that have been left unanswered (blank) on the case report form are reclassified to a Missing value, if applicable to the question. For example, in the question “Was the individual hospitalized?” where the possible answer choices include “Yes,” “No,” or “Unknown,” the blank value is recoded to Missing because the case report form did not include a response to the question.
• Logic checks are performed for date data. If an illogical date has been provided, CDC reviews the data with the reporting jurisdiction. For example, if a symptom onset date in the future is reported to CDC, this value is set to null until the reporting jurisdiction updates the date appropriately.
• Additional data quality processing to recode free text data is ongoing. Data on symptoms, race and ethnicity, and healthcare worker status have been prioritized.

Data Suppression

To prevent release of data that could be used to identify people, data cells are suppressed for low frequency (<5) records and indirect identifiers (e.g., date of first positive specimen). Suppression includes rare combinations of demographic characteristics (sex, age group, race/ethnicity). Suppressed values are re-coded to the NA answer option; records with data suppression are never removed.

For questions, please contact Ask SRRG (eocevent394@cdc.gov).

Additional COVID-19 Data

COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths by state and by county. These

Raw data used in analysis of determinants of dividend policy - a case of banking sector in Serbia.

Abstract

The National Family Health Survey 2019-21 (NFHS-5), the fifth in the NFHS series, provides information on population, health, and nutrition for India, each state/union territory (UT), and for 707 districts.

The primary objective of the 2019-21 round of National Family Health Surveys is to provide essential data on health and family welfare, as well as data on emerging issues in these areas, such as levels of fertility, infant and child mortality, maternal and child health, and other health and family welfare indicators by background characteristics at the national and state levels. Similar to NFHS-4, NFHS-5 also provides information on several emerging issues including perinatal mortality, high-risk sexual behaviour, safe injections, tuberculosis, noncommunicable diseases, and the use of emergency contraception.

The information collected through NFHS-5 is intended to assist policymakers and programme managers in setting benchmarks and examining progress over time in India’s health sector. Besides providing evidence on the effectiveness of ongoing programmes, NFHS-5 data will help to identify the need for new programmes in specific health areas.

The clinical, anthropometric, and biochemical (CAB) component of NFHS-5 is designed to provide vital estimates of the prevalence of malnutrition, anaemia, hypertension, high blood glucose levels, and waist and hip circumference, Vitamin D3, HbA1c, and malaria parasites through a series of biomarker tests and measurements.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15 to 54

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all women aged 15-49, all men age 15-54, and all children aged 0-5 resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A uniform sample design, which is representative at the national, state/union territory, and district level, was adopted in each round of the survey. Each district is stratified into urban and rural areas. Each rural stratum is sub-stratified into smaller substrata which are created considering the village population and the percentage of the population belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SC/ST). Within each explicit rural sampling stratum, a sample of villages was selected as Primary Sampling Units (PSUs); before the PSU selection, PSUs were sorted according to the literacy rate of women age 6+ years. Within each urban sampling stratum, a sample of Census Enumeration Blocks (CEBs) was selected as PSUs. Before the PSU selection, PSUs were sorted according to the percentage of SC/ST population. In the second stage of selection, a fixed number of 22 households per cluster was selected with an equal probability systematic selection from a newly created list of households in the selected PSUs. The list of households was created as a result of the mapping and household listing operation conducted in each selected PSU before the household selection in the second stage. In all, 30,456 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) were selected across the country in NFHS-5 drawn from 707 districts as on March 31st 2017, of which fieldwork was completed in 30,198 PSUs.

For further details on sample design, see Section 1.2 of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Four survey schedules/questionnaires: Household, Woman, Man, and Biomarker were canvassed in 18 local languages using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI).

Cleaning operations

Electronic data collected in the 2019-21 National Family Health Survey were received on a daily basis via the SyncCloud system at the International Institute for Population Sciences, where the data were stored on a password-protected computer. Secondary editing of the data, which required resolution of computer-identified inconsistencies and coding of open-ended questions, was conducted in the field by the Field Agencies and at the Field Agencies central office, and IIPS checked the secondary edits before the dataset was finalized.

Field-check tables were produced by IIPS and the Field Agencies on a regular basis to identify certain types of errors that might have occurred in eliciting information and recording question responses. Information from the field-check tables on the performance of each fieldwork team and individual investigator was promptly shared with the Field Agencies during the fieldwork so that the performance of the teams could be improved, if required.

Response rate

A total of 664,972 households were selected for the sample, of which 653,144 were occupied. Among the occupied households, 636,699 were successfully interviewed, for a response rate of 98 percent.

In the interviewed households, 747,176 eligible women age 15-49 were identified for individual women’s interviews. Interviews were completed with 724,115 women, for a response rate of 97 percent. In all, there were 111,179 eligible men age 15-54 in households selected for the state module. Interviews were completed with 101,839 men, for a response rate of 92 percent.

Abstract

The General Household Survey-Panel (GHS-Panel) is implemented in collaboration with the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) team as part of the Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (ISA) program. The objectives of the GHS-Panel include the development of an innovative model for collecting agricultural data, interinstitutional collaboration, and comprehensive analysis of welfare indicators and socio-economic characteristics. The GHS-Panel is a nationally representative survey of approximately 5,000 households, which are also representative of the six geopolitical zones. The 2023/24 GHS-Panel is the fifth round of the survey with prior rounds conducted in 2010/11, 2012/13, 2015/16 and 2018/19. The GHS-Panel households were visited twice: during post-planting period (July - September 2023) and during post-harvest period (January - March 2024).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households • Individuals • Agricultural plots • Communities

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The original GHS‑Panel sample was fully integrated with the 2010 GHS sample. The GHS sample consisted of 60 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) or Enumeration Areas (EAs), chosen from each of the 37 states in Nigeria. This resulted in a total of 2,220 EAs nationally. Each EA contributed 10 households to the GHS sample, resulting in a sample size of 22,200 households. Out of these 22,200 households, 5,000 households from 500 EAs were selected for the panel component, and 4,916 households completed their interviews in the first wave.

After nearly a decade of visiting the same households, a partial refresh of the GHS‑Panel sample was implemented in Wave 4 and maintained for Wave 5. The refresh was conducted to maintain the integrity and representativeness of the sample. The refresh EAs were selected from the same sampling frame as the original GHS‑Panel sample in 2010. A listing of households was conducted in the 360 EAs, and 10 households were randomly selected in each EA, resulting in a total refresh sample of approximately 3,600 households.

In addition to these 3,600 refresh households, a subsample of the original 5,000 GHS‑Panel households from 2010 were selected to be included in the new sample. This “long panel” sample of 1,590 households was designed to be nationally representative to enable continued longitudinal analysis for the sample going back to 2010. The long panel sample consisted of 159 EAs systematically selected across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones.

The combined sample of refresh and long panel EAs in Wave 5 that were eligible for inclusion consisted of 518 EAs based on the EAs selected in Wave 4. The combined sample generally maintains both the national and zonal representativeness of the original GHS‑Panel sample.

Sampling deviation

Although 518 EAs were identified for the post-planting visit, conflict events prevented interviewers from visiting eight EAs in the North West zone of the country. The EAs were located in the states of Zamfara, Katsina, Kebbi and Sokoto. Therefore, the final number of EAs visited both post-planting and post-harvest comprised 157 long panel EAs and 354 refresh EAs. The combined sample is also roughly equally distributed across the six geopolitical zones.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The GHS-Panel Wave 5 consisted of three questionnaires for each of the two visits. The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. The Agriculture Questionnaire was administered to all households engaged in agricultural activities such as crop farming, livestock rearing, and other agricultural and related activities. The Community Questionnaire was administered to the community to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

GHS-Panel Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provided information on demographics; education; health; labour; childcare; early child development; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm enterprises; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; economic shocks; and other sources of household income. Household location was geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the GHS-Panel data to other available geographic data sets (forthcoming).

GHS-Panel Agriculture Questionnaire: The Agriculture Questionnaire solicited information on land ownership and use; farm labour; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household plots; agricultural capital; irrigation; crop harvest and utilization; animal holdings and costs; household fishing activities; and digital farming information. Some information is collected at the crop level to allow for detailed analysis for individual crops.

GHS-Panel Community Questionnaire: The Community Questionnaire solicited information on access to infrastructure and transportation; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions, and achievements; social norms; and local retail price information.

The Household Questionnaire was slightly different for the two visits. Some information was collected only in the post-planting visit, some only in the post-harvest visit, and some in both visits.

The Agriculture Questionnaire collected different information during each visit, but for the same plots and crops.

The Community Questionnaire collected prices during both visits, and different community level information during the two visits.

Cleaning operations

CAPI: Wave five exercise was conducted using Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) techniques. All the questionnaires (household, agriculture, and community questionnaires) were implemented in both the post-planting and post-harvest visits of Wave 5 using the CAPI software, Survey Solutions. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Living Standards Measurement Unit within the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each enumerator was given a tablet which they used to conduct the interviews. Overall, implementation of survey using Survey Solutions CAPI was highly successful, as it allowed for timely availability of the data from completed interviews.

DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: The data communication system used in Wave 5 was highly automated. Each field team was given a mobile modem which allowed for internet connectivity and daily synchronization of their tablets. This ensured that head office in Abuja had access to the data in real-time. Once the interview was completed and uploaded to the server, the data was first reviewed by the Data Editors. The data was also downloaded from the server, and Stata dofile was run on the downloaded data to check for additional errors that were not captured by the Survey Solutions application. An excel error file was generated following the running of the Stata dofile on the raw dataset. Information contained in the excel error files were then communicated back to respective field interviewers for their action. This monitoring activity was done on a daily basis throughout the duration of the survey, both in the post-planting and post-harvest.

DATA CLEANING: The data cleaning process was done in three main stages. The first stage was to ensure proper quality control during the fieldwork. This was achieved in part by incorporating validation and consistency checks into the Survey Solutions application used for the data collection and designed to highlight many of the errors that occurred during the fieldwork.

The second stage cleaning involved the use of Data Editors and Data Assistants (Headquarters in Survey Solutions). As indicated above, once the interview is completed and uploaded to the server, the Data Editors review completed interview for inconsistencies and extreme values. Depending on the outcome, they can either approve or reject the case. If rejected, the case goes back to the respective interviewer’s tablet upon synchronization. Special care was taken to see that the households included in the data matched with the selected sample and where there were differences, these were properly assessed and documented. The agriculture data were also checked to ensure that the plots identified in the main sections merged with the plot information identified in the other sections. Additional errors observed were compiled into error reports that were regularly sent to the teams. These errors were then corrected based on re-visits to the household on the instruction of the supervisor. The data that had gone through this first stage of cleaning was then approved by the Data Editor. After the Data Editor’s approval of the interview on Survey Solutions server, the Headquarters also reviews and depending on the outcome, can either reject or approve.

The third stage of cleaning involved a comprehensive review of the final raw data following the first and second stage cleaning. Every variable was examined individually for (1) consistency with other sections and variables, (2) out of range responses, and (3) outliers. However, special care was taken to avoid making strong assumptions when resolving potential errors. Some minor errors remain in the data where the diagnosis and/or solution were unclear to the data cleaning team.

Response

Abstract

The General Household Survey-Panel (GHS-Panel) is implemented in collaboration with the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) team as part of the Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (ISA) program. The objectives of the GHS-Panel include the development of an innovative model for collecting agricultural data, interinstitutional collaboration, and comprehensive analysis of welfare indicators and socio-economic characteristics. The GHS-Panel is a nationally representative survey of approximately 5,000 households, which are also representative of the six geopolitical zones. The 2018/19 is the fourth round of the survey with prior rounds conducted in 2010/11, 2012/13, and 2015/16. GHS-Panel households were visited twice: first after the planting season (post-planting) between July and September 2018 and second after the harvest season (post-harvest) between January and February 2019.

Geographic coverage

National, the survey covered all the 36 states and Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

Analysis unit

Households, Individuals, Agricultural plots, Communites

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The original GHS-Panel sample of 5,000 households across 500 enumeration areas (EAs) and was designed to be representative at the national level as well as at the zonal level. The complete sampling information for the GHS-Panel is described in the Basic Information Document for GHS-Panel 2010/2011. However, after a nearly a decade of visiting the same households, a partial refresh of the GHS-Panel sample was implemented in Wave 4. For the partial refresh of the sample, a new set of 360 EAs were randomly selected which consisted of 60 EAs per zone. The refresh EAs were selected from the same sampling frame as the original GHS-Panel sample in 2010 (the "master frame").

A listing of all households was conducted in the 360 EAs and 10 households were randomly selected in each EA, resulting in a total refresh sample of approximated 3,600 households. In addition to these 3,600 refresh households, a subsample of the original 5,000 GHS-Panel households from 2010 were selected to be included in the new sample. This "long panel" sample was designed to be nationally representative to enable continued longitudinal analysis for the sample going back to 2010. The long panel sample consisted of 159 EAs systematically selected across the 6 geopolitical Zones. The systematic selection ensured that the distribution of EAs across the 6 Zones (and urban and rural areas within) is proportional to the original GHS-Panel sample.

Interviewers attempted to interview all households that originally resided in the 159 EAs and were successfully interviewed in the previous visit in 2016. This includes households that had moved away from their original location in 2010. In all, interviewers attempted to interview 1,507 households from the original panel sample. The combined sample of refresh and long panel EAs consisted of 519 EAs. The total number of households that were successfully interviewed in both visits was 4,976.

Sampling deviation

While the combined sample generally maintains both national and Zonal representativeness of the original GHS-Panel sample, the security situation in the North East of Nigeria prevented full coverage of the Zone. Due to security concerns, rural areas of Borno state were fully excluded from the refresh sample and some inaccessible urban areas were also excluded. Security concerns also prevented interviewers from visiting some communities in other parts of the country where conflict events were occurring. Refresh EAs that could not be accessed were replaced with another randomly selected EA in the Zone so as not to compromise the sample size. As a result, the combined sample is representative of areas of Nigeria that were accessible during 2018/19. The sample will not reflect conditions in areas that were undergoing conflict during that period. This compromise was necessary to ensure the safety of interviewers.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Cleaning operations

CAPI: For the first time in GHS-Panel, the Wave four exercise was conducted using Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) techniques. All the questionnaires, household, agriculture and community questionnaires were implemented in both the post-planting and post-harvest visits of Wave 4 using the CAPI software, Survey Solutions. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Survey Unit within the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each enumerator was given tablets which they used to conduct the interviews. Overall, implementation of survey using Survey Solutions CAPI was highly successful, as it allowed for timely availability of the data from completed interviews. DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: The data communication system used in Wave 4 was highly automated. Each field team was given a mobile modem allow for internet connectivity and daily synchronization of their tablet. This ensured that head office in Abuja has access to the data in real-time. Once the interview is completed and uploaded to the server, the data is first reviewed by the Data Editors.

The data is also downloaded from the server, and Stata dofile was run on the downloaded data to check for additional errors that were not captured by the Survey Solutions application. An excel error file is generated following the running of the Stata dofile on the raw dataset. Information contained in the excel error files are communicated back to respective field interviewers for action by the interviewers. This action is done on a daily basis throughout the duration of the survey, both in the post-planting and post-harvest. DATA CLEANING: The data cleaning process was done in three main stages. The first stage was to ensure proper quality control during the fieldwork. This was achieved in part by incorporating validation and consistency checks into the Survey Solutions application used for the data collection and designed to highlight many of the errors that occurred during the fieldwork. The second stage cleaning involved the use of Data Editors and Data Assistants (Headquarters in Survey Solutions). As indicated above, once the interview is completed and uploaded to the server, the Data Editors review completed interview for inconsistencies and extreme values. Depending on the outcome, they can either approve or reject the case. If rejected, the case goes back to the respective interviewer's tablet upon synchronization. Special care was taken to see that the households included in the data matched with the selected sample and where there were differences, these were properly assessed and documented.

The agriculture data were also checked to ensure that the plots identified in the main sections merged with the plot information identified in the other sections. Additional errors observed were compiled into error reports that were regularly sent to the teams. These errors were then corrected based on re-visits to the household on the instruction of the supervisor. The data that had gone through this first stage of cleaning was then approved by the Data Editor. After the Data Editor's approval of the interview on Survey Solutions server, the Headquarters also reviews and depending on the outcome, can either reject or approve. The third stage of cleaning involved a comprehensive review of the final raw data following the first and second stage cleaning. Every variable was examined individually for (1) consistency with other sections and variables, (2) out of range responses, and (3) outliers. However, special care was taken to avoid making strong assumptions when resolving potential errors. Some minor errors remain in the data where the diagnosis and/or solution were unclear to the data cleaning team.

As received polymers analyzed by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), CSV files for FTIR spectra.