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).

This article describes a free, open-source collection of templates for the popular Excel (2013, and later versions) spreadsheet program. These templates are spreadsheet files that allow easy and intuitive learning and the implementation of practical examples concerning descriptive statistics, random variables, confidence intervals, and hypothesis testing. Although they are designed to be used with Excel, they can also be employed with other free spreadsheet programs (changing some particular formulas). Moreover, we exploit some possibilities of the ActiveX controls of the Excel Developer Menu to perform interactive Gaussian density charts. Finally, it is important to note that they can be often embedded in a web page, so it is not necessary to employ Excel software for their use. These templates have been designed as a useful tool to teach basic statistics and to carry out data analysis even when the students are not familiar with Excel. Additionally, they can be used as a complement to other analytical software packages. They aim to assist students in learning statistics, within an intuitive working environment. Supplementary materials with the Excel templates are available online.

Raw data outputs 1-18 Raw data output 1. Differentially expressed genes in AML CSCs compared with GTCs as well as in TCGA AML cancer samples compared with normal ones. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and TCGA data analysis. Raw data output 2. Commonly and uniquely differentially expressed genes in AML CSC/GTC microarray and TCGA bulk RNA-seq datasets. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and TCGA data analysis. Raw data output 3. Common differentially expressed genes between training and test set samples the microarray dataset. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray data analysis. Raw data output 4. Detailed information on the samples of the breast cancer microarray dataset (GSE52327) used in this study. Raw data output 5. Differentially expressed genes in breast CSCs compared with GTCs as well as in TCGA BRCA cancer samples compared with normal ones. Raw data output 6. Commonly and uniquely differentially expressed genes in breast cancer CSC/GTC microarray and TCGA BRCA bulk RNA-seq datasets. This data was generated based on the results of breast cancer microarray and TCGA BRCA data analysis. CSC, and GTC are abbreviations of cancer stem cell, and general tumor cell, respectively. Raw data output 7. Differential and common co-expression and protein-protein interaction of genes between CSC and GTC samples. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and STRING database-based protein-protein interaction data analysis. CSC, and GTC are abbreviations of cancer stem cell, and general tumor cell, respectively. Raw data output 8. Differentially expressed genes between AML dormant and active CSCs. This data was generated based on the results of AML scRNA-seq data analysis. Raw data output 9. Uniquely expressed genes in dormant or active AML CSCs. This data was generated based on the results of AML scRNA-seq data analysis. Raw data output 10. Intersections between the targeting transcription factors of AML key CSC genes and differentially expressed genes between AML CSCs vs GTCs and between dormant and active AML CSCs or the uniquely expressed genes in either class of CSCs. Raw data output 11. Targeting desirableness score of AML key CSC genes and their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 12. CSC-specific targeting desirableness score of AML key CSC genes and their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 13. The protein-protein interactions between AML key CSC genes with themselves and their targeting transcription factors. This data was generated based on the results of AML microarray and STRING database-based protein-protein interaction data analysis. Raw data output 14. The previously confirmed associations of genes having the highest targeting desirableness and CSC-specific targeting desirableness scores with AML or other cancers’ (stem) cells as well as hematopoietic stem cells. These data were generated based on a PubMed database-based literature mining. Raw data output 15. Drug score of available drugs and bioactive small molecules targeting AML key CSC genes and/or their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 16. CSC-specific drug score of available drugs and bioactive small molecules targeting AML key CSC genes and/or their targeting transcription factors. These scores were generated based on an in-house scoring function described in the Methods section. Raw data output 17. Candidate drugs for experimental validation. These drugs were selected based on their respective (CSC-specific) drug scores. CSC is the abbreviation of cancer stem cell. Raw data output 18. Detailed information on the samples of the AML microarray dataset GSE30375 used in this study.

Sample data for exercises in Further Adventures in Data Cleaning.

Abstract

The documentation covers Enterprise Survey panel datasets that were collected in Slovenia in 2009, 2013 and 2019.

The Slovenia ES 2009 was conducted between 2008 and 2009. The Slovenia ES 2013 was conducted between March 2013 and September 2013. Finally, the Slovenia ES 2019 was conducted between December 2018 and November 2019. The objective of the Enterprise Survey is to gain an understanding of what firms experience in the private sector.

As part of its strategic goal of building a climate for investment, job creation, and sustainable growth, the World Bank has promoted improving the business environment as a key strategy for development, which has led to a systematic effort in collecting enterprise data across countries. The Enterprise Surveys (ES) are an ongoing World Bank project in collecting both objective data based on firms' experiences and enterprises' perception of the environment in which they operate.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

The primary sampling unit of the study is the establishment. An establishment is a physical location where business is carried out and where industrial operations take place or services are provided. A firm may be composed of one or more establishments. For example, a brewery may have several bottling plants and several establishments for distribution. For the purposes of this survey an establishment must take its own financial decisions and have its own financial statements separate from those of the firm. An establishment must also have its own management and control over its payroll.

Universe

As it is standard for the ES, the Slovenia ES was based on the following size stratification: small (5 to 19 employees), medium (20 to 99 employees), and large (100 or more employees).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample for Slovenia ES 2009, 2013, 2019 were selected using stratified random sampling, following the methodology explained in the Sampling Manual for Slovenia 2009 ES and for Slovenia 2013 ES, and in the Sampling Note for 2019 Slovenia ES.

Three levels of stratification were used in this country: industry, establishment size, and oblast (region). The original sample designs with specific information of the industries and regions chosen are included in the attached Excel file (Sampling Report.xls.) for Slovenia 2009 ES. For Slovenia 2013 and 2019 ES, specific information of the industries and regions chosen is described in the "The Slovenia 2013 Enterprise Surveys Data Set" and "The Slovenia 2019 Enterprise Surveys Data Set" reports respectively, Appendix E.

For the Slovenia 2009 ES, industry stratification was designed in the way that follows: the universe was stratified into manufacturing industries, services industries, and one residual (core) sector as defined in the sampling manual. Each industry had a target of 90 interviews. For the manufacturing industries sample sizes were inflated by about 17% to account for potential non-response cases when requesting sensitive financial data and also because of likely attrition in future surveys that would affect the construction of a panel. For the other industries (residuals) sample sizes were inflated by about 12% to account for under sampling in firms in service industries.

For Slovenia 2013 ES, industry stratification was designed in the way that follows: the universe was stratified into one manufacturing industry, and two service industries (retail, and other services).

Finally, for Slovenia 2019 ES, three levels of stratification were used in this country: industry, establishment size, and region. The original sample design with specific information of the industries and regions chosen is described in "The Slovenia 2019 Enterprise Surveys Data Set" report, Appendix C. Industry stratification was done as follows: Manufacturing – combining all the relevant activities (ISIC Rev. 4.0 codes 10-33), Retail (ISIC 47), and Other Services (ISIC 41-43, 45, 46, 49-53, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 79, 95).

For Slovenia 2009 and 2013 ES, size stratification was defined following the standardized definition for the rollout: small (5 to 19 employees), medium (20 to 99 employees), and large (more than 99 employees). For stratification purposes, the number of employees was defined on the basis of reported permanent full-time workers. This seems to be an appropriate definition of the labor force since seasonal/casual/part-time employment is not a common practice, except in the sectors of construction and agriculture.

For Slovenia 2009 ES, regional stratification was defined in 2 regions. These regions are Vzhodna Slovenija and Zahodna Slovenija. The Slovenia sample contains panel data. The wave 1 panel “Investment Climate Private Enterprise Survey implemented in Slovenia” consisted of 223 establishments interviewed in 2005. A total of 57 establishments have been re-interviewed in the 2008 Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey.

For Slovenia 2013 ES, regional stratification was defined in 2 regions (city and the surrounding business area) throughout Slovenia.

Finally, for Slovenia 2019 ES, regional stratification was done across two regions: Eastern Slovenia (NUTS code SI03) and Western Slovenia (SI04).

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Questionnaires have common questions (core module) and respectfully additional manufacturing- and services-specific questions. The eligible manufacturing industries have been surveyed using the Manufacturing questionnaire (includes the core module, plus manufacturing specific questions). Retail firms have been interviewed using the Services questionnaire (includes the core module plus retail specific questions) and the residual eligible services have been covered using the Services questionnaire (includes the core module). Each variation of the questionnaire is identified by the index variable, a0.

Response rate

Survey non-response must be differentiated from item non-response. The former refers to refusals to participate in the survey altogether whereas the latter refers to the refusals to answer some specific questions. Enterprise Surveys suffer from both problems and different strategies were used to address these issues.

Item non-response was addressed by two strategies: a- For sensitive questions that may generate negative reactions from the respondent, such as corruption or tax evasion, enumerators were instructed to collect the refusal to respond as (-8). b- Establishments with incomplete information were re-contacted in order to complete this information, whenever necessary. However, there were clear cases of low response.

For 2009 and 2013 Slovenia ES, the survey non-response was addressed by maximizing efforts to contact establishments that were initially selected for interview. Up to 4 attempts were made to contact the establishment for interview at different times/days of the week before a replacement establishment (with similar strata characteristics) was suggested for interview. Survey non-response did occur but substitutions were made in order to potentially achieve strata-specific goals. Further research is needed on survey non-response in the Enterprise Surveys regarding potential introduction of bias.

For 2009, the number of contacted establishments per realized interview was 6.18. This number is the result of two factors: explicit refusals to participate in the survey, as reflected by the rate of rejection (which includes rejections of the screener and the main survey) and the quality of the sample frame, as represented by the presence of ineligible units. The relatively low ratio of contacted establishments per realized interview (6.18) suggests that the main source of error in estimates in the Slovenia may be selection bias and not frame inaccuracy.

For 2013, the number of realized interviews per contacted establishment was 25%. This number is the result of two factors: explicit refusals to participate in the survey, as reflected by the rate of rejection (which includes rejections of the screener and the main survey) and the quality of the sample frame, as represented by the presence of ineligible units. The number of rejections per contact was 44%.

Finally, for 2019, the number of interviews per contacted establishments was 9.7%. This number is the result of two factors: explicit refusals to participate in the survey, as reflected by the rate of rejection (which includes rejections of the screener and the main survey) and the quality of the sample frame, as represented by the presence of ineligible units. The share of rejections per contact was 75.2%.

In the attached Excel file, "Example Student Data", there are 6 sheets. There are three sheets with sample datasets, one for each of the three different exercise protocols described. Additionally, there are three sheets with sample graphs created using one of the three datasets. · Sheets 1 and 2: This is an example of a dataset and graph created from an exercise protocol designed to stress the creatine phosphate system. Here, the subject was a track and field athlete who threw the shot put for the DeSales University track team. The NIRS monitor was placed on the right triceps muscle, and the student threw the shot put six times with a minute rest in between throws. Data was collected telemetrically by the NIRS device and then downloaded after the student had completed the protocol. · Sheets 3 and 4: This is an example of a dataset and graph created from an exercise protocol designed to stress the glycolytic energy system. In this example, the subject performed continuous squat jumps for 30 seconds, followed by a 90 second rest period, for a total of three exercise bouts. The NIRS monitor was place on the left gastrocnemius muscle. Here again, data was collected telemetrically by the NIRS device and then downloaded after he had completed the protocol. · Sheets 5 and 6: In this example, the dataset and graph are from an exercise protocol designed to stress the oxidative system. Here, the student held a light-intensity, isometric biceps contraction (pushing against a table). The NIRS monitor was attached to the left biceps muscle belly. Here, data was collected by a student observing the SmO2 values displayed on a secondary device; specifically, a smartphone with the IPSensorMan APP displaying data. The recorder student observed and recorded the data on an Excel Spreadsheet, and marked the times that exercise began and ended on the Spreadsheet.

To create the dataset, the top 10 countries leading in the incidence of COVID-19 in the world were selected as of October 22, 2020 (on the eve of the second full of pandemics), which are presented in the Global 500 ranking for 2020: USA, India, Brazil, Russia, Spain, France and Mexico. For each of these countries, no more than 10 of the largest transnational corporations included in the Global 500 rating for 2020 and 2019 were selected separately. The arithmetic averages were calculated and the change (increase) in indicators such as profitability and profitability of enterprises, their ranking position (competitiveness), asset value and number of employees. The arithmetic mean values of these indicators for all countries of the sample were found, characterizing the situation in international entrepreneurship as a whole in the context of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020 on the eve of the second wave of the pandemic. The data is collected in a general Microsoft Excel table. Dataset is a unique database that combines COVID-19 statistics and entrepreneurship statistics. The dataset is flexible data that can be supplemented with data from other countries and newer statistics on the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the fact that the data in the dataset are not ready-made numbers, but formulas, when adding and / or changing the values in the original table at the beginning of the dataset, most of the subsequent tables will be automatically recalculated and the graphs will be updated. This allows the dataset to be used not just as an array of data, but as an analytical tool for automating scientific research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis on international entrepreneurship. The dataset includes not only tabular data, but also charts that provide data visualization. The dataset contains not only actual, but also forecast data on morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 for the period of the second wave of the pandemic in 2020. The forecasts are presented in the form of a normal distribution of predicted values and the probability of their occurrence in practice. This allows for a broad scenario analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis on international entrepreneurship, substituting various predicted morbidity and mortality rates in risk assessment tables and obtaining automatically calculated consequences (changes) on the characteristics of international entrepreneurship. It is also possible to substitute the actual values identified in the process and following the results of the second wave of the pandemic to check the reliability of pre-made forecasts and conduct a plan-fact analysis. The dataset contains not only the numerical values of the initial and predicted values of the set of studied indicators, but also their qualitative interpretation, reflecting the presence and level of risks of a pandemic and COVID-19 crisis for international entrepreneurship.

Time-Series Matrix (TSMx): A visualization tool for plotting multiscale temporal trends TSMx is an R script that was developed to facilitate multi-temporal-scale visualizations of time-series data. The script requires only a two-column CSV of years and values to plot the slope of the linear regression line for all possible year combinations from the supplied temporal range. The outputs include a time-series matrix showing slope direction based on the linear regression, slope values plotted with colors indicating magnitude, and results of a Mann-Kendall test. The start year is indicated on the y-axis and the end year is indicated on the x-axis. In the example below, the cell in the top-right corner is the direction of the slope for the temporal range 2001–2019. The red line corresponds with the temporal range 2010–2019 and an arrow is drawn from the cell that represents that range. One cell is highlighted with a black border to demonstrate how to read the chart—that cell represents the slope for the temporal range 2004–2014. This publication entry also includes an excel template that produces the same visualizations without a need to interact with any code, though minor modifications will need to be made to accommodate year ranges other than what is provided. TSMx for R was developed by Georgios Boumis; TSMx was originally conceptualized and created by Brad G. Peter in Microsoft Excel. Please refer to the associated publication: Peter, B.G., Messina, J.P., Breeze, V., Fung, C.Y., Kapoor, A. and Fan, P., 2024. Perspectives on modifiable spatiotemporal unit problems in remote sensing of agriculture: evaluating rice production in Vietnam and tools for analysis. Frontiers in Remote Sensing, 5, p.1042624. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2024.1042624 TSMx sample chart from the supplied Excel template. Data represent the productivity of rice agriculture in Vietnam as measured via EVI (enhanced vegetation index) from the NASA MODIS data product (MOD13Q1.V006). TSMx R script: # import packages library(dplyr) library(readr) library(ggplot2) library(tibble) library(tidyr) library(forcats) library(Kendall) options(warn = -1) # disable warnings # read data (.csv file with "Year" and "Value" columns) data <- read_csv("EVI.csv") # prepare row/column names for output matrices years <- data %>% pull("Year") r.names <- years[-length(years)] c.names <- years[-1] years <- years[-length(years)] # initialize output matrices sign.matrix <- matrix(data = NA, nrow = length(years), ncol = length(years)) pval.matrix <- matrix(data = NA, nrow = length(years), ncol = length(years)) slope.matrix <- matrix(data = NA, nrow = length(years), ncol = length(years)) # function to return remaining years given a start year getRemain <- function(start.year) { years <- data %>% pull("Year") start.ind <- which(data[["Year"]] == start.year) + 1 remain <- years[start.ind:length(years)] return (remain) } # function to subset data for a start/end year combination splitData <- function(end.year, start.year) { keep <- which(data[['Year']] >= start.year & data[['Year']] <= end.year) batch <- data[keep,] return(batch) } # function to fit linear regression and return slope direction fitReg <- function(batch) { trend <- lm(Value ~ Year, data = batch) slope <- coefficients(trend)[[2]] return(sign(slope)) } # function to fit linear regression and return slope magnitude fitRegv2 <- function(batch) { trend <- lm(Value ~ Year, data = batch) slope <- coefficients(trend)[[2]] return(slope) } # function to implement Mann-Kendall (MK) trend test and return significance # the test is implemented only for n>=8 getMann <- function(batch) { if (nrow(batch) >= 8) { mk <- MannKendall(batch[['Value']]) pval <- mk[['sl']] } else { pval <- NA } return(pval) } # function to return slope direction for all combinations given a start year getSign <- function(start.year) { remaining <- getRemain(start.year) combs <- lapply(remaining, splitData, start.year = start.year) signs <- lapply(combs, fitReg) return(signs) } # function to return MK significance for all combinations given a start year getPval <- function(start.year) { remaining <- getRemain(start.year) combs <- lapply(remaining, splitData, start.year = start.year) pvals <- lapply(combs, getMann) return(pvals) } # function to return slope magnitude for all combinations given a start year getMagn <- function(start.year) { remaining <- getRemain(start.year) combs <- lapply(remaining, splitData, start.year = start.year) magns <- lapply(combs, fitRegv2) return(magns) } # retrieve slope direction, MK significance, and slope magnitude signs <- lapply(years, getSign) pvals <- lapply(years, getPval) magns <- lapply(years, getMagn) # fill-in output matrices dimension <- nrow(sign.matrix) for (i in 1:dimension) { sign.matrix[i, i:dimension] <- unlist(signs[i]) pval.matrix[i, i:dimension] <- unlist(pvals[i]) slope.matrix[i, i:dimension] <- unlist(magns[i]) } sign.matrix <-...

Abstract

The intention is to collect data for the calendar year 2009 (or the nearest year for which each business keeps its accounts. The survey is considered a one-off survey, although for accurate NAs, such a survey should be conducted at least every five years to enable regular updating of the ratios, etc., needed to adjust the ongoing indicator data (mainly VAGST) to NA concepts. The questionnaire will be drafted by FSD, largely following the previous BAS, updated to current accounting terminology where necessary. The questionnaire will be pilot tested, using some accountants who are likely to complete a number of the forms on behalf of their business clients, and a small sample of businesses. Consultations will also include Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Labour, Central Bank of Samoa (CBS), Samoa Tourism Authority, Chamber of Commerce, and other business associations (hotels, retail, etc.).

The questionnaire will collect a number of items of information about the business ownership, locations at which it operates and each establishment for which detailed data can be provided (in the case of complex businesses), contact information, and other general information needed to clearly identify each unique business. The main body of the questionnaire will collect data on income and expenses, to enable value added to be derived accurately. The questionnaire will also collect data on capital formation, and will contain supplementary pages for relevant industries to collect volume of production data for selected commodities and to collect information to enable an estimate of value added generated by key tourism activities.

The principal user of the data will be FSD which will incorporate the survey data into benchmarks for the NA, mainly on the current published production measure of GDP. The information on capital formation and other relevant data will also be incorporated into the experimental estimates of expenditure on GDP. The supplementary data on volumes of production will be used by FSD to redevelop the industrial production index which has recently been transferred under the SBS from the CBS. The general information about the business ownership, etc., will be used to update the Business Register.

Outputs will be produced in a number of formats, including a printed report containing descriptive information of the survey design, data tables, and analysis of the results. The report will also be made available on the SBS website in “.pdf” format, and the tables will be available on the SBS website in excel tables. Data by region may also be produced, although at a higher level of aggregation than the national data. All data will be fully confidentialised, to protect the anonymity of all respondents. Consideration may also be made to provide, for selected analytical users, confidentialised unit record files (CURFs).

A high level of accuracy is needed because the principal purpose of the survey is to develop revised benchmarks for the NA. The initial plan was that the survey will be conducted as a stratified sample survey, with full enumeration of large establishments and a sample of the remainder.

Geographic coverage

National Coverage

Analysis unit

The main statistical unit to be used for the survey is the establishment. For simple businesses that undertake a single activity at a single location there is a one-to-one relationship between the establishment and the enterprise. For large and complex enterprises, however, it is desirable to separate each activity of an enterprise into establishments to provide the most detailed information possible for industrial analysis. The business register will need to be developed in such a way that records the links between establishments and their parent enterprises. The business register will be created from administrative records and may not have enough information to recognize all establishments of complex enterprises. Large businesses will be contacted prior to the survey post-out to determine if they have separate establishments. If so, the extended structure of the enterprise will be recorded on the business register and a questionnaire will be sent to the enterprise to be completed for each establishment.

SBS has decided to follow the New Zealand simplified version of its statistical units model for the 2009 BAS. Future surveys may consider location units and enterprise groups if they are found to be useful for statistical collections.

It should be noted that while establishment data may enable the derivation of detailed benchmark accounts, it may be necessary to aggregate up to enterprise level data for the benchmarks if the ongoing data used to extrapolate the benchmark forward (mainly VAGST) are only available at the enterprise level.

Universe

The BAS's covered all employing units, and excluded small non-employing units such as the market sellers. The surveys also excluded central government agencies engaged in public administration (ministries, public education and health, etc.). It only covers businesses that pay the VAGST. (Threshold SAT$75,000 and upwards).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

-Total Sample Size was 1240 -Out of the 1240, 902 successfully completed the questionnaire. -The other remaining 338 either never responded or were omitted (some businesses were ommitted from the sample as they do not meet the requirement to be surveyed) -Selection was all employing units paying VAGST (Threshold SAT $75,000 upwards)

WILL CONFIRM LATER!!

OSO LE MEA E LE FAASA...AEA :-)

Mode of data collection

Mail Questionnaire [mail]

Research instrument

1. General instructions, authority for the survey, etc;
2. Business demography information on ownership, contact details, structure, etc.;
3. Employment;
4. Income;
5. Expenses;
6. Inventories;
7. Profit or loss and reconciliation to business accounts' profit and loss;
8. Fixed assets - purchases, disposals, book values
9. Thank you and signature of respondent.

Supplementary Pages Additional pages have been prepared to collect data for a limited range of industries. 1.Production data. To rebase and redevelop the Industrial Production Index (IPI), it is intended to collect volume of production information from a selection of large manufacturing businesses. The selection of businesses and products is critical to the usefulness of the IPI. The products must be homogeneous, and be of enough importance to the economy to justify collecting the data. Significance criteria should be established for the selection of products to include in the IPI, and the 2009 BAS provides an opportunity to collect benchmark data for a range of products known to be significant (based on information in the existing IPI, CPI weights, export data, etc.) as well as open questions for respondents to provide information on other significant products. 2.Tourism. There is a strong demand for estimates of tourism value added. To estimate tourism value added using the international standard Tourism Satellite Account methodology requires the use of an input-output table, which is beyond the capacity of SBS at present. However, some indicative estimates of the main parts of the economy influenced by tourism can be derived if the necessary data are collected. Tourism is a demand concept, based on defining tourists (the international standard includes both international and domestic tourists), what products are characteristically purchased by tourists, and which industries supply those products. Some questions targeted at those industries that have significant involvement with tourists (hotels, restaurants, transport and tour operators, vehicle hire, etc.), on how much of their income is sourced from tourism would provide valuable indicators of the size of the direct impact of tourism.

Cleaning operations

Partial imputation was done at the time of receipt of questionnaires, after follow-up procedures to obtain fully completed questionnaires have been followed. Imputation followed a process, i.e., apply ratios from responding units in the imputation cell to the partial data that was supplied. Procedures were established during the editing stage (a) to preserve the integrity of the questionnaires as supplied by respondents, and (b) to record all changes made to the questionnaires during editing. If SBS staff writes on the form, for example, this should only be done in red pen, to distinguish the alterations from the original information.

Additional edit checks were developed, including checking against external data at enterprise/establishment level. External data to be checked against include VAGST and SNPF for turnover and purchases, and salaries and wages and employment data respectively. Editing and imputation processes were undertaken by FSD using Excel.

Sampling error estimates

NOT APPLICABLE!!

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

This repository contains the data supporting the manuscript "A Generic Scenario Analysis of End-of-Life Plastic Management: Chemical Additives" (to be) submitted to the Energy and Environmental Science Journal https://pubs.rsc.org/en/journals/journalissues/ee#!recentarticles&adv This repository contains Excel spreadsheets used to calculate material flow throughout the plastics life cycle, with a strong emphasis on chemical additives in the end-of-life stages. Three major scenarios were presented in the manuscript: 1) mechanical recycling (existing recycling infrastructure), 2) implementing chemical recycling to the existing plastics recycling, and 3) extracting chemical additives before the manufacturing stage. Users would primarily modify values on the yellow tab "US 2018 Facts - Sensitivity". Values highlighted in yellow may be changed for sensitivity analysis purposes. Please note that the values shown for MSW generated, recycled, incinerated, landfilled, composted, imported, exported, re-exported, and other categories in this tab were based on 2018 data. Analysis for other years can be made possible with a replicate version of this spreadsheet and the necessary data to replace those of 2018. Most of the tabs, especially those that contain "Stream # - Description", do not require user interaction. They are intermediate calculations that change according to the user inputs. It is available for the user to see so that the calculation/method is transparent. The major results of these individual stream tabs are ultimately compiled into one summary tab. All streams throughout the plastics life cycle, for each respective scenario (1, 2, and 3), are shown in the "US Mat Flow Analysis 2018" tab. For each stream, we accounted the approximate mass of plastics found in MSW, additives that may be present, and non-plastics. Each spreadsheet contains a representative diagram that matches the stream label. This illustration is placed to aid the user with understanding the connection between each stage in the plastics' life cycle. For example, the Scenario 1 spreadsheet uniquely contains Material Flow Analysis Summary, in addition to the LCI. In the "Material Flow Analysis Summary" tab, we represented the input, output, releases, exposures, and greenhouse gas emissions based on the amount of materials inputted into a specific stage in the plastics life cycle. The "Life Cycle Inventory" tab contributes additional calculations to estimate land, air, and water releases. Figures and Data - A gs analysis on eol plastic management This word document contains the raw data used to create all the figures in the main manuscript. The major references used to obtain the data are also included where appropriate.

This component contains the data and syntax code used to conduct the Exploratory Factor Analysis and compute Velicer’s minimum average partial test in sample 1

SoilExcel workflow, a tool designed to optimize soil data analysis. It covers data preparation, statistical analysis methods, and result visualization. SoilExcel integrates various environmental data types and applies advanced techniques to enhance accuracy in soil studies. The results demonstrate its effectiveness in interpreting complex data, aiding decision-making in environmental management projects. Background Understanding the intricate relationships and patterns within soil samples is crucial for various environmental and agricultural applications. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) serves as a powerful tool in unraveling the complexity of multivariate soil datasets. Soil datasets often consist of numerous variables representing diverse physicochemical properties, making PCA an invaluable method for: ∙Dimensionality Reduction: Simplifying the analysis without compromising data integrity by reducing the dimensionality of large soil datasets. ∙Identification of Dominant Patterns: Revealing dominant patterns or trends within the data, providing insights into key factors contributing to overall variability. ∙Exploration of Variable Interactions: Enabling the exploration of complex interactions between different soil attributes, enhancing understanding of their relationships. ∙Interpretability of Data Variance: Clarifying how much variance is explained by each principal component, aiding in discerning the significance of different components and variables. ∙Visualization of Data Structure: Facilitating intuitive comprehension of data structure through plots such as scatter plots of principal components, helping identify clusters, trends, and outliers. ∙Decision Support for Subsequent Analyses: Providing a foundation for subsequent analyses by guiding decision-making, whether in identifying influential variables, understanding data patterns, or selecting components for further modeling. Introduction The motivation behind this workflow is rooted in the imperative need to conduct a thorough analysis of a diverse soil dataset, characterized by an array of physicochemical variables. Comprising multiple rows, each representing distinct soil samples, the dataset encompasses variables such as percentage of coarse sands, percentage of organic matter, hydrophobicity, and others. The intricacies of this dataset demand a strategic approach to preprocessing, analysis, and visualization. To lay the groundwork, the workflow begins with the transformation of an initial Excel file into a CSV format, ensuring improved compatibility and ease of use throughout subsequent analyses. Furthermore, the workflow is designed to empower users in the selection of relevant variables, a task facilitated by user-defined parameters. This flexibility allows for a focused and tailored dataset, essential for meaningful analysis. Acknowledging the inherent challenges of missing data, the workflow offers options for data quality improvement, including optional interpolation of missing values or the removal of rows containing such values. Standardizing the dataset and specifying the target variable are crucial, establishing a robust foundation for subsequent statistical analyses. Incorporating PCA offers a sophisticated approach, enabling users to explore inherent patterns and structures within the data. The adaptability of PCA allows users to customize the analysis by specifying the number of components or desired variance. The workflow concludes with practical graphical representations, including covariance and correlation matrices, a scree plot, and a scatter plot, offering users valuable visual insights into the complexities of the soil dataset. Aims The primary objectives of this workflow are tailored to address specific challenges and goals inherent in the analysis of diverse soil samples: ∙Data transformation: Efficiently convert the initial Excel file into a CSV format to enhance compatibility and ease of use. ∙Variable selection: Empower users to extract relevant variables based on user-defined parameters, facilitating a focused and tailored dataset. ∙Data quality improvement: Provide options for interpolation or removal of missing values to ensure dataset integrity for downstream analyses. ∙Standardization and target specification: Standardize the dataset values and designate the target variable, laying the groundwork for subsequent statistical analyses. ∙PCA: Conduct PCA with flexibility, allowing users to specify the number of components or desired variance for a comprehensive understanding of data variance and patterns. ∙Graphical representations: Generate visual outputs, including covariance and correlation matrices, a scree plot, and a scatter plot, enhancing the interpretability of the soil dataset. Scientific questions This workflow addresses critical scientific questions related to soil analysis: ∙Variable importance: Identify variables contributing significantly to principal components through the covariance matrix and PCA. ∙Data structure: Explore correlations between variables and gain insights from the correlation matrix. ∙Optimal component number: Determine the optimal number of principal components using the scree plot for effective representation of data variance. ∙Target-related patterns: Analyze how selected principal components correlate with the target variable in the scatter plot, revealing patterns based on target variable values.

The ITEX experiment at Audkuluheidi was started in 1996 when control and OTC plots 1-5 were set up. In 1997 Control and OTC plots 6-10 were set up in the protected area (No Graze). Also in 1997, 10 control plots were set up in the adjacent grazed area (Graze). In 2000, all plots were sampled again. This dataset is in excel format. For more information, please see the readme file.

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one "best value" determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB) before it, the AGDB2 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska in order to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, environmental impact assessments, and studies in medical geology. This relational database, created from the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB) that was released in 2011, serves as a data archive in support of present and future Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects, and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 85 laboratory and field analytical methods on 264,095 rock, sediment, soil, mineral and heavy-mineral concentrate samples. Most samples were collected by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) personnel and analyzed in USGS laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various USGS programs and projects from 1962 through 2009. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB2 includes historical geochemical data originally archived in the USGS Rock Analysis Storage System (RASS) database, used from the mid-1960s through the late 1980s and the USGS PLUTO database used from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. All of these data are currently maintained in the National Geochemical Database (NGDB). Retrievals from the NGDB were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. This arduous process of reviewing, verifying and, where necessary, editing all USGS geochemical data resulted in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset. USGS data that were not previously in the NGDB because the data predate the earliest USGS geochemical databases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB2 and will be added to the NGDB. The AGDB2 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date, and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB2 data provided in the linked database may be updated or changed periodically.

This Excel file lists the samples uploaded in PRIDE. The table “Table Sorted PP and Replicates” in the Excel file has all the relevant annotation.

There are more than the expected 168 samples in the PRIDE upload for the following reasons:

First, all of the measurements from the experiment had been uploaded, including files for measurements that were repeated because of problems during the MS run. These samples are not annotated in the table. Second, we had included 4 Gold Standard samples (2 replicates on each of the two large gels used to process all samples). These 4 gold standard samples in 7 fractions explain 28 extra samples. Third, we did not have 168 but 166 samples in the photoperiod set. Fractions 1 and 2 of sample 43 (Photoperiod 2, bio replicate 1, tech. replicate 2) were lost during sample preparation. While the remaining fractions were measured and are included in the PRIDE upload and the table, this sample was not used in the data analysis. Photoperiod 2 bio rep. 1 was only used with one technical replicate in the calculations.

This zip file contains data files for 3 activities described in the accompanying PPT slides 1. an excel spreadsheet for analysing gain scores in a 2 group, 2 times data array. this activity requires access to –https://campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/effect-size-calculator.html to calculate effect size.2. an AMOS path model and SPSS data set for an autoregressive, bivariate path model with cross-lagging. This activity is related to the following article: Brown, G. T. L., & Marshall, J. C. (2012). The impact of training students how to write introductions for academic essays: An exploratory, longitudinal study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 653-670. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.5632773. an AMOS latent curve model and SPSS data set for a 3-time latent factor model with an interaction mixed model that uses GPA as a predictor of the LCM start and slope or change factors. This activity makes use of data reported previously and a published data analysis case: Peterson, E. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Jun, M. C. (2015). Achievement emotions in higher education: A diary study exploring emotions across an assessment event. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 82-96. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.05.002andBrown, G. T. L., & Peterson, E. R. (2018). Evaluating repeated diary study responses: Latent curve modeling. In SAGE Research Methods Cases Part 2. Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com/case/evaluating-repeated-diary-study-responses-latent-curve-modeling doi:10.4135/9781526431592

Spatial analysis and statistical summaries of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) provide land managers and decision makers with a general assessment of management intent for biodiversity protection, natural resource management, and recreation access across the nation. The PAD-US 3.0 Combined Fee, Designation, Easement feature class (with Military Lands and Tribal Areas from the Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries feature class) was modified to remove overlaps, avoiding overestimation in protected area statistics and to support user needs. A Python scripted process ("PADUS3_0_CreateVectorAnalysisFileScript.zip") associated with this data release prioritized overlapping designations (e.g. Wilderness within a National Forest) based upon their relative biodiversity conservation status (e.g. GAP Status Code 1 over 2), public access values (in the order of Closed, Restricted, Open, Unknown), and geodatabase load order (records are deliberately organized in the PAD-US full inventory with fee owned lands loaded before overlapping management designations, and easements). The Vector Analysis File ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFile_ClipCensus.zip") associated item of PAD-US 3.0 Spatial Analysis and Statistics ( https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KLBB5D ) was clipped to the Census state boundary file to define the extent and serve as a common denominator for statistical summaries. Boundaries of interest to stakeholders (State, Department of the Interior Region, Congressional District, County, EcoRegions I-IV, Urban Areas, Landscape Conservation Cooperative) were incorporated into separate geodatabase feature classes to support various data summaries ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFileOtherExtents_Clip_Census.zip") and Comma-separated Value (CSV) tables ("PADUS3_0SummaryStatistics_TabularData_CSV.zip") summarizing "PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFileOtherExtents_Clip_Census.zip" are provided as an alternative format and enable users to explore and download summary statistics of interest (Comma-separated Table [CSV], Microsoft Excel Workbook [.XLSX], Portable Document Format [.PDF] Report) from the PAD-US Lands and Inland Water Statistics Dashboard ( https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/pad-us-statistics ). In addition, a "flattened" version of the PAD-US 3.0 combined file without other extent boundaries ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFile_ClipCensus.zip") allow for other applications that require a representation of overall protection status without overlapping designation boundaries. The "PADUS3_0VectorAnalysis_State_Clip_CENSUS2020" feature class ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFileOtherExtents_Clip_Census.gdb") is the source of the PAD-US 3.0 raster files (associated item of PAD-US 3.0 Spatial Analysis and Statistics, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KLBB5D ). Note, the PAD-US inventory is now considered functionally complete with the vast majority of land protection types represented in some manner, while work continues to maintain updates and improve data quality (see inventory completeness estimates at: http://www.protectedlands.net/data-stewards/ ). In addition, changes in protected area status between versions of the PAD-US may be attributed to improving the completeness and accuracy of the spatial data more than actual management actions or new acquisitions. USGS provides no legal warranty for the use of this data. While PAD-US is the official aggregation of protected areas ( https://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html ), agencies are the best source of their lands data.

This zip file contains: - 3 .zip files = projects to be imported into SmartPLS 3

DLOQ-A model with 7 dimensions DLOQ-A model with second-order latent variable ECSI model (Tenenhaus et al., 2005) to exemplify direct, indirect and total effects, as well as importance-performance map and moderation with continuous variables. ECSI Model (Sanches, 2013) to exemplify MGA (multi-group analysis)

• 5 files (csv, txt) with data to run 7 examples in SmartPLS 3

Note: - DLOQ-A = new dataset (ours) - ECSI-Tenenhaus et al. [model for mediation and moderation] = available at: http://www.smartpls.com > Resources > SmartPLS Project Examples - ECSI-Sanches [dataset for MGA] = available in the software R > library(plspm) > data(satisfaction)

Sheet 1 (Raw-Data): The raw data of the study is provided, presenting the tagging results for the used measures described in the paper. For each subject, it includes multiple columns: A. a sequential student ID B an ID that defines a random group label and the notation C. the used notation: user Story or use Cases D. the case they were assigned to: IFA, Sim, or Hos E. the subject's exam grade (total points out of 100). Empty cells mean that the subject did not take the first exam F. a categorical representation of the grade L/M/H, where H is greater or equal to 80, M is between 65 included and 80 excluded, L otherwise G. the total number of classes in the student's conceptual model H. the total number of relationships in the student's conceptual model I. the total number of classes in the expert's conceptual model J. the total number of relationships in the expert's conceptual model K-O. the total number of encountered situations of alignment, wrong representation, system-oriented, omitted, missing (see tagging scheme below) P. the researchers' judgement on how well the derivation process explanation was explained by the student: well explained (a systematic mapping that can be easily reproduced), partially explained (vague indication of the mapping ), or not present.

Tagging scheme:
Aligned (AL) - A concept is represented as a class in both models, either

with the same name or using synonyms or clearly linkable names; Wrongly represented (WR) - A class in the domain expert model is incorrectly represented in the student model, either (i) via an attribute, method, or relationship rather than class, or (ii) using a generic term (e.g., user'' instead ofurban planner''); System-oriented (SO) - A class in CM-Stud that denotes a technical implementation aspect, e.g., access control. Classes that represent legacy system or the system under design (portal, simulator) are legitimate; Omitted (OM) - A class in CM-Expert that does not appear in any way in CM-Stud; Missing (MI) - A class in CM-Stud that does not appear in any way in CM-Expert.

All the calculations and information provided in the following sheets

originate from that raw data.

Sheet 2 (Descriptive-Stats): Shows a summary of statistics from the data collection,

including the number of subjects per case, per notation, per process derivation rigor category, and per exam grade category.

Sheet 3 (Size-Ratio):

The number of classes within the student model divided by the number of classes within the expert model is calculated (describing the size ratio). We provide box plots to allow a visual comparison of the shape of the distribution, its central value, and its variability for each group (by case, notation, process, and exam grade) . The primary focus in this study is on the number of classes. However, we also provided the size ratio for the number of relationships between student and expert model.

Sheet 4 (Overall):

Provides an overview of all subjects regarding the encountered situations, completeness, and correctness, respectively. Correctness is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that is fully aligned with the classes in the corresponding expert model. It is calculated by dividing the number of aligned concepts (AL) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), omitted concepts (OM), system-oriented concepts (SO), and wrong representations (WR). Completeness on the other hand, is defined as the ratio of classes in a student model that are correctly or incorrectly represented over the number of classes in the expert model. Completeness is calculated by dividing the sum of aligned concepts (AL) and wrong representations (WR) by the sum of the number of aligned concepts (AL), wrong representations (WR) and omitted concepts (OM). The overview is complemented with general diverging stacked bar charts that illustrate correctness and completeness.

For sheet 4 as well as for the following four sheets, diverging stacked bar

charts are provided to visualize the effect of each of the independent and mediated variables. The charts are based on the relative numbers of encountered situations for each student. In addition, a "Buffer" is calculated witch solely serves the purpose of constructing the diverging stacked bar charts in Excel. Finally, at the bottom of each sheet, the significance (T-test) and effect size (Hedges' g) for both completeness and correctness are provided. Hedges' g was calculated with an online tool: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. The independent and moderating variables can be found as follows:

Sheet 5 (By-Notation):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by notation - UC, US.

Sheet 6 (By-Case):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by case - SIM, HOS, IFA.

Sheet 7 (By-Process):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by how well the derivation process is explained - well explained, partially explained, not present.

Sheet 8 (By-Grade):

Model correctness and model completeness is compared by the exam grades, converted to categorical values High, Low , and Medium.