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.

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.

Transparency in data visualization is an essential ingredient for scientific communication. The traditional approach of visualizing continuous quantitative data solely in the form of summary statistics (i.e., measures of central tendency and dispersion) has repeatedly been criticized for not revealing the underlying raw data distribution. Remarkably, however, systematic and easy-to-use solutions for raw data visualization using the most commonly reported statistical software package for data analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics, are missing. Here, a comprehensive collection of more than 100 SPSS syntax files and an SPSS dataset template is presented and made freely available that allow the creation of transparent graphs for one-sample designs, for one- and two-factorial between-subject designs, for selected one- and two-factorial within-subject designs as well as for selected two-factorial mixed designs and, with some creativity, even beyond (e.g., three-factorial mixed-designs). Depending on graph type (e.g., pure dot plot, box plot, and line plot), raw data can be displayed along with standard measures of central tendency (arithmetic mean and median) and dispersion (95% CI and SD). The free-to-use syntax can also be modified to match with individual needs. A variety of example applications of syntax are illustrated in a tutorial-like fashion along with fictitious datasets accompanying this contribution. The syntax collection is hoped to provide researchers, students, teachers, and others working with SPSS a valuable tool to move towards more transparency in data visualization.

The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER database. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on the latest available governmental unit boundaries. The Census TIGER database represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The 2006 Second Edition TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. This shapefile represents the current State House Districts for New Mexico as posted on the Census Bureau website for 2006.

Abstract

The dataset was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme from multiple source datasets. The source datasets are identified in the Lineage field in this metadata statement. The processes undertaken to produce this derived dataset are described in the History field in this metadata statement.

Various climate variables summary for all 15 subregions based on Bureau of Meteorology Australian Water Availability Project (BAWAP) climate grids. Including

1. Time series mean annual BAWAP rainfall from 1900 - 2012.

2. Long term average BAWAP rainfall and Penman Potentail Evapotranspiration (PET) from Jan 1981 - Dec 2012 for each month

3. Values calculated over the years 1981 - 2012 (inclusive), for 17 time periods (i.e., annual, 4 seasons and 12 months) for the following 8 meteorological variables: (i) BAWAP_P (precipitation); (ii) Penman ETp; (iii) Tavg (average temperature); (iv) Tmax (maximum temperature); (v) Tmin (minimum temperature); (vi) VPD (Vapour Pressure Deficit); (vii) Rn (net radiation); and (viii) Wind speed. For each of the 17 time periods for each of the 8 meteorological variables have calculated the: (a) average; (b) maximum; (c) minimum; (d) average plus standard deviation (stddev); (e) average minus stddev; (f) stddev; and (g) trend.

4. Correlation coefficients (-1 to 1) between rainfall and 4 remote rainfall drivers between 1957-2006 for the four seasons. The data and methodology are described in Risbey et al. (2009).

As described in the Risbey et al. (2009) paper, the rainfall was from 0.05 degree gridded data described in Jeffrey et al. (2001 - known as the SILO datasets); sea surface temperature was from the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST) on a 1 degree grid. BLK=Blocking; DMI=Dipole Mode Index; SAM=Southern Annular Mode; SOI=Southern Oscillation Index; DJF=December, January, February; MAM=March, April, May; JJA=June, July, August; SON=September, October, November. The analysis is a summary of Fig. 15 of Risbey et al. (2009).

There are 4 csv files here:

BAWAP_P_annual_BA_SYB_GLO.csv

Desc: Time series mean annual BAWAP rainfall from 1900 - 2012.

Source data: annual BILO rainfall

P_PET_monthly_BA_SYB_GLO.csv

long term average BAWAP rainfall and Penman PET from 198101 - 201212 for each month

Climatology_Trend_BA_SYB_GLO.csv

Values calculated over the years 1981 - 2012 (inclusive), for 17 time periods (i.e., annual, 4 seasons and 12 months) for the following 8 meteorological variables: (i) BAWAP_P; (ii) Penman ETp; (iii) Tavg; (iv) Tmax; (v) Tmin; (vi) VPD; (vii) Rn; and (viii) Wind speed. For each of the 17 time periods for each of the 8 meteorological variables have calculated the: (a) average; (b) maximum; (c) minimum; (d) average plus standard deviation (stddev); (e) average minus stddev; (f) stddev; and (g) trend

Risbey_Remote_Rainfall_Drivers_Corr_Coeffs_BA_NSB_GLO.csv

Correlation coefficients (-1 to 1) between rainfall and 4 remote rainfall drivers between 1957-2006 for the four seasons. The data and methodology are described in Risbey et al. (2009). As described in the Risbey et al. (2009) paper, the rainfall was from 0.05 degree gridded data described in Jeffrey et al. (2001 - known as the SILO datasets); sea surface temperature was from the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST) on a 1 degree grid. BLK=Blocking; DMI=Dipole Mode Index; SAM=Southern Annular Mode; SOI=Southern Oscillation Index; DJF=December, January, February; MAM=March, April, May; JJA=June, July, August; SON=September, October, November. The analysis is a summary of Fig. 15 of Risbey et al. (2009).

Dataset History

Dataset was created from various BAWAP source data, including Monthly BAWAP rainfall, Tmax, Tmin, VPD, etc, and other source data including monthly Penman PET, Correlation coefficient data. Data were extracted from national datasets for the GLO subregion.

BAWAP_P_annual_BA_SYB_GLO.csv

Desc: Time series mean annual BAWAP rainfall from 1900 - 2012.

Source data: annual BILO rainfall

P_PET_monthly_BA_SYB_GLO.csv

long term average BAWAP rainfall and Penman PET from 198101 - 201212 for each month

Climatology_Trend_BA_SYB_GLO.csv

Values calculated over the years 1981 - 2012 (inclusive), for 17 time periods (i.e., annual, 4 seasons and 12 months) for the following 8 meteorological variables: (i) BAWAP_P; (ii) Penman ETp; (iii) Tavg; (iv) Tmax; (v) Tmin; (vi) VPD; (vii) Rn; and (viii) Wind speed. For each of the 17 time periods for each of the 8 meteorological variables have calculated the: (a) average; (b) maximum; (c) minimum; (d) average plus standard deviation (stddev); (e) average minus stddev; (f) stddev; and (g) trend

Risbey_Remote_Rainfall_Drivers_Corr_Coeffs_BA_NSB_GLO.csv

Correlation coefficients (-1 to 1) between rainfall and 4 remote rainfall drivers between 1957-2006 for the four seasons. The data and methodology are described in Risbey et al. (2009). As described in the Risbey et al. (2009) paper, the rainfall was from 0.05 degree gridded data described in Jeffrey et al. (2001 - known as the SILO datasets); sea surface temperature was from the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST) on a 1 degree grid. BLK=Blocking; DMI=Dipole Mode Index; SAM=Southern Annular Mode; SOI=Southern Oscillation Index; DJF=December, January, February; MAM=March, April, May; JJA=June, July, August; SON=September, October, November. The analysis is a summary of Fig. 15 of Risbey et al. (2009).

Dataset Citation

Bioregional Assessment Programme (2014) GLO climate data stats summary. Bioregional Assessment Derived Dataset. Viewed 18 July 2018, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/afed85e0-7819-493d-a847-ec00a318e657.

Dataset Ancestors

• Derived From Natural Resource Management (NRM) Regions 2010

• Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v03

• Derived From BILO Gridded Climate Data: Daily Climate Data for each year from 1900 to 2012

• Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v01

• Derived From Bioregional Assessment areas v02

• Derived From GEODATA TOPO 250K Series 3

• Derived From NSW Catchment Management Authority Boundaries 20130917

• Derived From Geological Provinces - Full Extent

• Derived From GEODATA TOPO 250K Series 3, File Geodatabase format (.gdb)

Vitamin D insufficiency appears to be prevalent in SLE patients. Multiple factors potentially contribute to lower vitamin D levels, including limited sun exposure, the use of sunscreen, darker skin complexion, aging, obesity, specific medical conditions, and certain medications. The study aims to assess the risk factors associated with low vitamin D levels in SLE patients in the southern part of Bangladesh, a region noted for a high prevalence of SLE. The research additionally investigates the possible correlation between vitamin D and the SLEDAI score, seeking to understand the potential benefits of vitamin D in enhancing disease outcomes for SLE patients. The study incorporates a dataset consisting of 50 patients from the southern part of Bangladesh and evaluates their clinical and demographic data. An initial exploratory data analysis is conducted to gain insights into the data, which includes calculating means and standard deviations, performing correlation analysis, and generating heat maps. Relevant inferential statistical tests, such as the Student’s t-test, are also employed. In the machine learning part of the analysis, this study utilizes supervised learning algorithms, specifically Linear Regression (LR) and Random Forest (RF). To optimize the hyperparameters of the RF model and mitigate the risk of overfitting given the small dataset, a 3-Fold cross-validation strategy is implemented. The study also calculates bootstrapped confidence intervals to provide robust uncertainty estimates and further validate the approach. A comprehensive feature importance analysis is carried out using RF feature importance, permutation-based feature importance, and SHAP values. The LR model yields an RMSE of 4.83 (CI: 2.70, 6.76) and MAE of 3.86 (CI: 2.06, 5.86), whereas the RF model achieves better results, with an RMSE of 2.98 (CI: 2.16, 3.76) and MAE of 2.68 (CI: 1.83,3.52). Both models identify Hb, CRP, ESR, and age as significant contributors to vitamin D level predictions. Despite the lack of a significant association between SLEDAI and vitamin D in the statistical analysis, the machine learning models suggest a potential nonlinear dependency of vitamin D on SLEDAI. These findings highlight the importance of these factors in managing vitamin D levels in SLE patients. The study concludes that there is a high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in SLE patients. Although a direct linear correlation between the SLEDAI score and vitamin D levels is not observed, machine learning models suggest the possibility of a nonlinear relationship. Furthermore, factors such as Hb, CRP, ESR, and age are identified as more significant in predicting vitamin D levels. Thus, the study suggests that monitoring these factors may be advantageous in managing vitamin D levels in SLE patients. Given the immunological nature of SLE, the potential role of vitamin D in SLE disease activity could be substantial. Therefore, it underscores the need for further large-scale studies to corroborate this hypothesis.

In genomic study, log transformation is a common prepossessing step to adjust for skewness in data. This standard approach often assumes that log-transformed data is normally distributed, and two sample t-test (or its modifications) is used for detecting differences between two experimental conditions. However, recently it was shown that two sample t-test can lead to exaggerated false positives, and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test was proposed as an alternative for studies with larger sample sizes. In addition, studies have demonstrated that the specific distribution used in modeling genomic data has profound impact on the interpretation and validity of results. The aim of this paper is three-fold: 1) to present the Exp-gamma distribution (exponential-gamma distribution stands for log-transformed gamma distribution) as a proper biological and statistical model for the analysis of log-transformed protein abundance data from single-cell experiments; 2) to demonstrate the inappropriateness of two sample t-test and the WMW test in analyzing log-transformed protein abundance data; 3) to propose and evaluate statistical inference methods for hypothesis testing and confidence interval estimation when comparing two independent samples under the Exp-gamma distributions. The proposed methods are applied to analyze protein abundance data from a single-cell dataset.

The product data are six statistics that were estimated for the chemical concentration of lithium in the soil C horizon of the conterminous United States. The estimates are made at 9998 locations that are uniformly distributed across the conterminous United States. The six statistics are the mean for the isometric log-ratio transform of the concentrations, the equivalent mean for the concentrations, the standard deviation for the isometric log-ratio transform of the concentrations, the probability of exceeding a concentration of 55 milligrams per kilogram, the 0.95 quantile for the isometric log-ratio transform of the concentrations, and the equivalent 0.95 quantile for the concentrations. Each statistic may be used to generate a statistical map that shows an attribute of the distribution of lithium concentration.

The 2018 Census commuter view dataset contains the employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over by statistical area 2 for the main means of travel to work variable from the 2018 Census. The geography corresponds to 2018 boundaries. This dataset is the base data for the ‘There and back again: our daily commute’ competition. This 2018 Census commuter view dataset is displayed by statistical area 2 geography and contains from-to (journey) information on an individual's usual residence and workplace address* by main means of travel to work. * Workplace address is coded from information supplied by respondents about their workplaces. Where respondents do not supply sufficient information, their responses are coded to ‘not further defined’. The 2018 Census commuter view datasets excludes these ‘not further defined’ areas, as such the sum of the counts for each region in this dataset may not be equal to the total employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over for that region. It is recommended that this dataset be downloaded as either a CSV or a file geodatabase. This dataset can be used in conjunction with the following spatial files by joining on the statistical area 2 code values: · Statistical Area 2 2018 (generalised) · Statistical Area 2 2018 (Centroid Inside) The data uses fixed random rounding to protect confidentiality. Counts of less than 6 are suppressed according to 2018 confidentiality rules. Values of -999 indicate suppressed data. Data quality ratings for 2018 Census variables, summarising the quality rating and priority levels for 2018 Census variables, are available. For information on the statistical area 2 geography please refer to the Statistical standard for geographic areas 2018. ​

Abstract

This dataset was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme from 'Mean climate variables for all subregions' and 'fPAR derived from MODIS for BA subregions'. You can find a link to the parent datasets in the Lineage Field in this metadata statement. The History Field in this metadata statement describes how this dataset was derived.

These are charts of climate statistics and MODIS data for each BA subregion. There are six 600dpi PNG files per subregion, with the naming convention BA-[regioncode]-[subregioncode]-[chartname].png. The charts, according to their filename, are: rain (time-series of rainfall; Figure 1), P-PET (average monthly precipitation and potential evapotranspiration; Figure 2), 5line (assorted monthly statistics; Figure 3), trend (monthly long-term trends; Figure 4) and fPAR (fraction of photosynthetically available radiation - an indication of biomass; Figure 5).

This version was created on 18 November 2014, using data that accounted for a modified boundary for the Gippsland Basin bioregion and the combination of two subregions to form the Sydney Basin bioregion.

Purpose

These charts were generated to be included in the Contextual Report (geography) for each subregion.

Dataset History

These charts were generated using MatPlotLib 1.3.0 in Python 2.7.5 (Anaconda distribution v1.7.0 32-bit).

The script for generating these plots is BA-ClimateCharts.py, and is packaged with the dataset. This script is a data collection and chart drawing script, it does not do any analysis. The data are charted as they appear in the parent datasets (see Lineage). A word document (BA-ClimateGraphs-ReadMe) is also included. This document includes examples of, and approved captions for, each chart.

Dataset Citation

Bioregional Assessment Programme (2014) Charts of climate statistics and MODIS data for all Bioregional Assessment subregions. Bioregional Assessment Derived Dataset. Viewed 14 June 2018, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/8a1c5f43-b150-4357-aa25-5f301b1a02e1.

Dataset Ancestors

• Derived From Mean climate variables for all subregions

• Derived From BILO Gridded Climate Data: Daily Climate Data for each year from 1900 to 2012

• Derived From fPar derived from MODIS for BA subregions

CourseKata is a platform that creates and publishes a series of e-books for introductory statistics and data science classes that utilize demonstrated learning strategies to help students learn statistics and data science. The developers of CourseKata, Jim Stigler (UCLA) and Ji Son (Cal State Los Angeles) and their team, are cognitive psychologists interested in improving statistics learning by examining students' interactions with online interactive textbooks. Traditionally, much of the research in how students learn is done in a 1-hour lab or through small-scale interviews with students. CourseKata offers the opportunity to peek into the actions, responses, and choices of thousands of students as they are engaged in learning the interrelated concepts and skills of statistics and coding in R over many weeks or months in real classes.

1. items.csv (1335 X 19) Each row contains information about a particular question (although it does not provide the prompt). The item to which a question belongs is included. All items/questions are represented. Use this file to go deeper into particular questions that students encounter in the course.

Questions are grouped into items (item_id). An item can be one of three item_type 's: code, learnosity or learnosity-activity (the distinction between learnosity and learnosity-activity is not important). Code items are a single question and ask for R code as a response. (Responses can be seen in responses.csv.) Learnosity-activities and learnosity items are collections of one or more questions that can be of a variety of lrn_type's: ● association ● choicematrix ● clozeassociation ● formulaV2 ● imageclozeassociation ● mcq ● plaintext ● shorttext ● sortlist

Examples of these question types are provided at the end of this document.

The level of detail made available to you in the responses file depends on the lrn_type. For example, for multiple choice questions (mcq), you can find the options in the responses file in the columns labeled lrn_option_0 through lrn_option_11, and you can see the chosen option in the results variable.

Assessment Types In general, assessments, such as the items and questions included in CourseKata, can be used for two purposes. Formative assessments are meant to provide feedback to the student (and instructor), or to serve as a learning aid to help prompt students improve memory and deepen their understanding. Summative assessments are meant to provide a summary of a student's understanding, often for use in assigning a grade. For example, most midterms and final exams that you've taken are summative assessments.

The vast majority of items in CourseKata should be treated as formative assessments. The exceptions are the end-of-chapter Review questions, which can be thought of as summative. The mean number of correct answers for end-of-chapter review questions is provided within the checkpoints file. You might see that some pages have the word "Quiz" or "Exam" or "Midterm" in them. Results from these items and responses to them are not provided to us in this data set.

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 data release contains the input-data files and R scripts associated with the analysis presented in [citation of manuscript]. The spatial extent of the data is the contiguous U.S. The input-data files include one comma separated value (csv) file of county-level data, and one csv file of city-level data. The county-level csv (“county_data.csv”) contains data for 3,109 counties. This data includes two measures of water use, descriptive information about each county, three grouping variables (climate region, urban class, and economic dependency), and contains 18 explanatory variables: proportion of population growth from 2000-2010, fraction of withdrawals from surface water, average daily water yield, mean annual maximum temperature from 1970-2010, 2005-2010 maximum temperature departure from the 40-year maximum, mean annual precipitation from 1970-2010, 2005-2010 mean precipitation departure from the 40-year mean, Gini income disparity index, percent of county population with at least some college education, Cook Partisan Voting Index, housing density, median household income, average number of people per household, median age of structures, percent of renters, percent of single family homes, percent apartments, and a numeric version of urban class. The city-level csv (city_data.csv) contains data for 83 cities. This data includes descriptive information for each city, water-use measures, one grouping variable (climate region), and 6 explanatory variables: type of water bill (increasing block rate, decreasing block rate, or uniform), average price of water bill, number of requirement-oriented water conservation policies, number of rebate-oriented water conservation policies, aridity index, and regional price parity. The R scripts construct fixed-effects and Bayesian Hierarchical regression models. The primary difference between these models relates to how they handle possible clustering in the observations that define unique water-use settings. Fixed-effects models address possible clustering in one of two ways. In a "fully pooled" fixed-effects model, any clustering by group is ignored, and a single, fixed estimate of the coefficient for each covariate is developed using all of the observations. Conversely, in an unpooled fixed-effects model, separate coefficient estimates are developed only using the observations in each group. A hierarchical model provides a compromise between these two extremes. Hierarchical models extend single-level regression to data with a nested structure, whereby the model parameters vary at different levels in the model, including a lower level that describes the actual data and an upper level that influences the values taken by parameters in the lower level. The county-level models were compared using the Watanabe-Akaike information criterion (WAIC) which is derived from the log pointwise predictive density of the models and can be shown to approximate out-of-sample predictive performance. All script files are intended to be used with R statistical software (R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org) and Stan probabilistic modeling software (Stan Development Team. 2017. RStan: the R interface to Stan. R package version 2.16.2. http://mc-stan.org).

Data collection

This dataset contains information on the eprints posted on arXiv from its launch in 1991 until the end of 2019 (1,589,006 unique eprints), plus the data on their citations and the associated impact metrics. Here, eprints include preprints, conference proceedings, book chapters, data sets and commentary, i.e. every electronic material that has been posted on arXiv.

The content and metadata of the arXiv eprints were retrieved from the arXiv API (https://arxiv.org/help/api/) as of 21st January 2020, where the metadata included data of the eprint’s title, author, abstract, subject category and the arXiv ID (the arXiv’s original eprint identifier). In addition, the associated citation data were derived from the Semantic Scholar API (https://api.semanticscholar.org/) from 24th January 2020 to 7th February 2020, containing the citation information in and out of the arXiv eprints and their published versions (if applicable). Here, whether an eprint has been published in a journal or other means is assumed to be inferrable, albeit indirectly, from the status of the digital object identifier (DOI) assignment. It is also assumed that if an arXiv eprint received cpre and cpub citations until the data retrieval date (7th February 2020) before and after it is assigned a DOI, respectively, then the citation count of this eprint is recorded in the Semantic Scholar dataset as cpre + cpub. Both the arXiv API and the Semantic Scholar datasets contained the arXiv ID as metadata, which served as a key variable to merge the two datasets.

The classification of research disciplines is based on that described in the arXiv.org website (https://arxiv.org/help/stats/2020_by_area/). There, the arXiv subject categories are aggregated into several disciplines, of which we restrict our attention to the following six disciplines: Astrophysics (‘astro-ph’), Computer Science (‘comp-sci’), Condensed Matter Physics (‘cond-mat’), High Energy Physics (‘hep’), Mathematics (‘math’) and Other Physics (‘oth-phys’), which collectively accounted for 98% of all the eprints. Those eprints tagged to multiple arXiv disciplines were counted independently for each discipline. Due to this overlapping feature, the current dataset contains a cumulative total of 2,011,216 eprints.

Some general statistics and visualisations per research discipline are provided in the original article (Okamura, to appear), where the validity and limitations associated with the dataset are also discussed.

Description of columns (variables)

arxiv_id : arXiv ID

category : Research discipline

pre_year : Year of posting v1 on arXiv

pub_year : Year of DOI acquisition

c_tot : No. of citations acquired during 1991–2019

c_pre : No. of citations acquired before and including the year of DOI acquisition

c_pub : No. of citations acquired after the year of DOI acquisition

c_yyyy (yyyy = 1991, …, 2019) : No. of citations acquired in the year yyyy (with ‘yyyy’ running from 1991 to 2019)

gamma : The quantitatively-and-temporally normalised citation index

gamma_star : The quantitatively-and-temporally standardised citation index

Note: The definition of the quantitatively-and-temporally normalised citation index (γ; ‘gamma’) and that of the standardised citation index (γ*; ‘gamma_star’) are provided in the original article (Okamura, to appear). Both indices can be used to compare the citational impact of papers/eprints published in different research disciplines at different times.

Data files

A comma-separated values file (‘arXiv_impact.csv’) and a Stata file (‘arXiv_impact.dta’) are provided, both containing the same information.

This section presents a discussion of the research data. The data was received as secondary data however, it was originally collected using the time study techniques. Data validation is a crucial step in the data analysis process to ensure that the data is accurate, complete, and reliable. Descriptive statistics was used to validate the data. The mean, mode, standard deviation, variance and range determined provides a summary of the data distribution and assists in identifying outliers or unusual patterns. The data presented in the dataset show the measures of central tendency which includes the mean, median and the mode. The mean signifies the average value of each of the factors presented in the tables. This is the balance point of the dataset, the typical value and behaviour of the dataset. The median is the middle value of the dataset for each of the factors presented. This is the point where the dataset is divided into two parts, half of the values lie below this value and the other half lie above this value. This is important for skewed distributions. The mode shows the most common value in the dataset. It was used to describe the most typical observation. These values are important as they describe the central value around which the data is distributed. The mean, mode and median give an indication of a skewed distribution as they are not similar nor are they close to one another. In the dataset, the results and discussion of the results is also presented. This section focuses on the customisation of the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control) framework to address the specific concerns outlined in the problem statement. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the current process, value stream mapping was employed, which is further enhanced by measuring the factors that contribute to inefficiencies. These factors are then analysed and ranked based on their impact, utilising factor analysis. To mitigate the impact of the most influential factor on project inefficiencies, a solution is proposed using the EOQ (Economic Order Quantity) model. The implementation of the 'CiteOps' software facilitates improved scheduling, monitoring, and task delegation in the construction project through digitalisation. Furthermore, project progress and efficiency are monitored remotely and in real time. In summary, the DMAIC framework was tailored to suit the requirements of the specific project, incorporating techniques from inventory management, project management, and statistics to effectively minimise inefficiencies within the construction project.

This dataset consists of a simulated normal distribution data having n = 500 data points and mean = 80 and standard deviation = 2.

Quantitative analysis of adolescent exposure to fast food marketing on Instagram. Descriptive statistics were calculated and the total frequency of each marketing strategy was obtained. For the continuous variables mean and standard deviation values were obtained. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to examine the association between the marketing strategies and user engagement, while the Kruskal-Wallis H test was completed to test for associations between brand name and engagement.

The data set represents contextualised population parameter definitions extracted and developed from past NZQA Level 3 Statistics exam questions. and assessment schedules, namely those used for the achievement standards AS90642 and AS91584.The data set was developed by Haozhong Wei as part of his MSc dissertation project, under the supervision of Dr Anna Fergusson and Dr Anne Patel (University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau).An overview of the variables used in the dataset:1. Year: This variable is the year of the exam.2. Paper: This is the identifier of the paper, e.g., AS90642, indicating the specific exam to which the question belongs.3. Type: This variable indicates the type of data and usually identifies whether the entry is a question or an answer.4. Question part: This variable indicates the specific part number of the problem, e.g., 1a, 1b, 2, etc.5. Text: This is the full text of the question.6. Population parameter: A description of the parameter of the entire text.7. Parameter type: These variables further detail the type of overall parameter, such as ‘single mean’ or ‘single proportion’ or even ‘difference between two means’.

20 May 2025

Some counts in the ‘Train’ category were incorrectly suppressed when actual figures should have been available. We have republished the 2018 data based on the 2023 Census meshblock pattern. 2023 Census main means of travel to work by statistical area 2 provides updated data.

​

The 2018 Census commuter view dataset contains the census usually resident population count who are studying (part time or full time), by statistical area 2 for the main means of travel to education variable from the 2018 Census. The geography corresponds to 2018 boundaries.

This dataset is the base data for the ‘There and back again: our daily commute’ competition.

This 2018 Census commuter view dataset is displayed by statistical area 2 geography and contains from-to (journey) on an individual’s usual residence and educational institution address* by main means of travel to education.

*Educational institution address is coded from information supplied by respondents about where they study. Where respondents do not supply sufficient information, their responses are coded to ‘not further defined’. The 2018 Census commuter view datasets excludes these ‘not further defined’ areas, as such the sum of the counts for each region in this dataset may not be equal to the total census usually resident population count who are studying (part time or full time) for that region.

It is recommended that this dataset be downloaded as either a CSV or a file geodatabase.

This dataset can be used in conjunction with the following spatial files by joining on the statistical area 2 code values:

· Statistical Area 2 2018 (generalised)

· Statistical Area 2 2018 (Centroid Inside)

The data uses fixed random rounding to protect confidentiality. Counts of less than 6 are suppressed according to 2018 confidentiality rules. Values of -999 indicate suppressed data..

Data quality ratings for 2018 Census variables, summarising the quality rating and priority levels for 2018 Census variables, are available.

For information on the statistical area 2 geography please refer to the Statistical standard for geographic areas 2018.