This dataset contains crash information from the last five years to the current date. The data is based on the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The data is dynamic, allowing for additions, deletions and modifications at any time, resulting in more accurate information in the database. Due to ongoing and continuous data entry, the numbers of records in subsequent extractions are subject to change.About Crash DataThe Cary Police Department strives to make crash data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors into this process, which relies on data furnished by many people and that cannot always be verified. As the data is updated on this site there will be instances of adding new incidents and updating existing data with information gathered through the investigative process.Not surprisingly, crash data becomes more accurate over time, as new crashes are reported and more information comes to light during investigations.This dynamic nature of crash data means that content provided here today will probably differ from content provided a week from now. Likewise, content provided on this site will probably differ somewhat from crime statistics published elsewhere by the Town of Cary, even though they draw from the same database.About Crash LocationsCrash locations reflect the approximate locations of the crash. Certain crashes may not appear on maps if there is insufficient detail to establish a specific, mappable location.

Jurisdictional Unit, 2022-05-21. For use with WFDSS, IFTDSS, IRWIN, and InFORM.This is a feature service which provides Identify and Copy Feature capabilities. If fast-drawing at coarse zoom levels is a requirement, consider using the tile (map) service layer located at https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b2c5daad00742cd9f9b676c09d03d13.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Agencies dataset is developed as a national land management geospatial layer, focused on representing wildland fire jurisdictional responsibility, for interagency wildland fire applications, including WFDSS (Wildland Fire Decision Support System), IFTDSS (Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System), IRWIN (Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information), and InFORM (Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules). It is intended to provide federal wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries on a national scale. The agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIdentifier=null,JurisdictionalUnitAgency=null, JurisdictionalUnitKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).These data are used to automatically populate fields on the WFDSS Incident Information page.This data layer implements the NWCG Jurisdictional Unit Polygon Geospatial Data Layer Standard.Relevant NWCG Definitions and StandardsUnit2. A generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Unit, Protecting; LandownerUnit IdentifierThis data standard specifies the standard format and rules for Unit Identifier, a code used within the wildland fire community to uniquely identify a particular government organizational unit.Landowner Kind & CategoryThis data standard provides a two-tier classification (kind and category) of landownership. Attribute Fields JurisdictionalAgencyKind Describes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, and Other. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalAgencyCategoryDescribes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Standard Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available from the Unit ID standard, linked above.LandownerKindThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. There are three valid values: Federal, Private, or Other.LandownerCategoryThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State, Private.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. Be as specific as possible, identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated.SecondaryDataSourceIf the Data Source is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if Data Source is "PAD-US 2.1", then for a USDA Forest Service polygon, the Secondary Data Source would be "USDA FS Automated Lands Program (ALP)". For a BLM polygon in the same dataset, Secondary Source would be "Surface Management Agency (SMA)."SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.MapMethod:Controlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. Map method may help define data quality. MapMethod will be Mixed Method by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; OtherDateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using 24 hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature. GeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. This field may be renamed for each standard to fit the feature.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LocalNameLocalName for the polygon provided from PADUS or other source.LegendJurisdictionalAgencyJurisdictional Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.LegendLandownerAgencyLandowner Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.Data InputThis dataset is based on an aggregation of 4 spatial data sources: Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 2.1), data from Bureau of Indian Affairs regional offices, the BLM Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska, and Census Block-Group Geometry. NWCG Unit ID and Agency Kind/Category data are tabular and sourced from UnitIDActive.txt, in the WFMI Unit ID application (https://wfmi.nifc.gov/unit_id/Publish.html). Areas of with unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Agency Kind/Category are assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private" by use of the non-water polygons from the Census Block-Group geometry.PAD-US 2.1:This dataset is based in large part on the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States - PAD-US 2.`. PAD-US is a compilation of authoritative protected areas data between agencies and organizations that ultimately results in a comprehensive and accurate inventory of protected areas for the United States to meet a variety of needs (e.g. conservation, recreation, public health, transportation, energy siting, ecological, or watershed assessments and planning). Extensive documentation on PAD-US processes and data sources is available.How these data were aggregated:Boundaries, and their descriptors, available in spatial databases (i.e. shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes) from land management agencies are the desired and primary data sources in PAD-US. If these authoritative sources are unavailable, or the agency recommends another source, data may be incorporated by other aggregators such as non-governmental organizations. Data sources are tracked for each record in the PAD-US geodatabase (see below).BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data are not available in PAD-US. As such, data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were substantially updated in 2022. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The

It is sometimes said that reliability field data is the “real reliability data” because they reflect actual reliability performance of a product or system. Reliability field data areobtained, most commonly, from warranty returns (combined with production/sales records to provide information on units that were not returned) and maintenance databases. For some products (e.g., medical devices), careful field tracking is done, providing detailed information about all units deployed into the field. Reliability field data are almost always multiply censored because many units had not failedat the time the data were analyzed. In addition to failure times, sometimes failure mode information is also available for units that have failed. Other complications like truncation also arise in some field reliability data sets.

This table gives an overview of government expenditure on regular education in the Netherlands since 1900. All figures presented have been calculated according to the standardised definitions of the OECD.

Government expenditure on education consists of expenditure by central and local government on education institutions and education. Government finance schools, colleges and universities. It pays for research and development conducted by universities. Furthermore it provides student grants and loans, allowances for school costs, provisions for students with a disability and child care allowances to households as well as subsidies to companies and non-profit organisations.

Total government expenditure is broken down into expenditure on education institutions and education on the one hand and government expenditure on student grants and loans and allowances for school costs to households on the other. If applicable these subjects are broken down into pre-primary and primary education, special needs primary education, secondary education, senior secondary vocational and adult education, higher professional education and university education. Data are available from 1900. Figures for the Second World War period are based on estimations due to a lack of source material.

The table also includes the indicator government expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). This indicator is used to compare government expenditure on education internationally. The indicator is compounded on the basis of definitions of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). The indicator is also presented in the StatLine table education; Education expenditure and CBS/OECD indicators. Figures for the First World War and Second World War period are not available for this indicator due to a lack of reliable data on GDP for these periods.

The statistic on education spending is compiled on a cash basis. This means that the education expenditure and revenues are allocated to the year in which they are paid out or received. However, the activity or transaction associated with the payment or receipt can take place in a different year.

Statistics Netherlands published the revised National Accounts in June 2018. Among other things, GDP has been adjusted upwards as a result of the revision. The revision has not been extended to the years before 1995. In the indicator “Total government expenditure as % of GDP”, a break occurs between 1994 and 1995 as a result of the revision.

Data available from: 1900

Status of the figures: The figures from 1995 to 2020 are final. The 2021 figures are revised provisional, the 2022 figures are provisional.

Changes on 7 December 2023: The revised provisional figures of 2021 and the provisional figures of 2022 have been added.

When will new figures be published? The final figures for 2021 will be published in the first quarter of 2024. The final figures for 2022 and the provisional figures for 2023 will be published in December 2024.

From an international point of view, Sweden has some partially unique historical statistics, including, among other things, statistics on population growth from 1749 onwards. In the Swedish archives though, there are very rich sources of various kinds, which could provide statistics for periods much further back in time. It is especially important for agricultural statistics, since the official data is not reliable until as late as about 1900. Particularly valuable material in terms of population and agriculture is preserved from the periods around 1570, 1630, 1690. For the period around 1570 and 1630 there are tax records of the number of animals in each parish. As from the first half of the 1600s, it becomes increasingly common with data on the arable land in maps and land surveying descriptions. Around 1690 survey records and maps were established for tens of thousands of farms, in connection with the introduction of the so-called allotment system. From 1736 onwards, hundreds of thousands of inventories of farmers have been preserved. They provide information about the deceased farmers’ animals and often on the seed corn. The sources also provide information on land ownership (taxed land, Crown land and land exempt from tax, owned by the nobility). For the former Danish and Norwegian districts (Halland, Blekinge, Skåne, Gotland, Bohuslän, Jämtland and Härjedalen) before Swedish times, partly other kinds of sources provide similar data. Purpose: The aim of the project is to create agricultural statistics covering all parishes within Sweden’s contemporary boundaries and the periods around 1570, 1630, 1690, 1750 and 1810, to supplement the population statistics for the same periods already published in 2000 (Lennart Palm, "The population of Swedish parishes and municipalities 1571-1997"). The agricultural statistics will provide easily accessible data for a large number of users, such as historians, economic historians, human geographers, geographers, sociologists, ethnologists, the County Administrative Board’s cultural environment planners, the staff of the Swedish National Heritage Board and of the county museums, as well as pupils working on school projects and local historians. Sverige har en internationellt sett delvis unik historisk statistik, bl a över befolkningsutvecklingen från 1749 och framåt. I de svenska arkiven finns dock mycket innehållsrika källor av olika slag som skulle kunna föra statistiken mycket längre tillbaks i tiden. Särskilt viktigt är det för jordbruksstatistiken, där den officiella inte börjar bli pålitlig förrän så sent som cirka 1900. Särskilt värdefullt material vad gäller befolkning och jordbruk finns bevarat från perioderna cirka 1570, 1630, 1690. För tiden cirka 1570 och 1630 finns skattelängder över antalet djur socken för socken. Fr o m första halvan av 1600-talet blir det allt vanligare med åkeruppgifter i kartor och anda lantmäteribeskrivningar. Runt 1690 upprättades besiktningsprotokoll och kartor i för 10 000-tals gårdar i samband med införandet av det s k indelningsverket. Från 1736 och framåt har hundratusentals bouppteckningar efter bönder bevarats. De ger uppgifter om de avlidnas djur och ofta spannmålsutsäde. Källorna ger också uppgifter om jordägandet (det s k mantalets skatte-, krono- och frälsejord). För de f d danska och norska landskapen (Halland, Blekinge, Skåne, Gotland, Bohuslän, Jämtland och Härjedalen) före svensktiden ger delvis andra slags källor liknande uppgifter. Syfte: Projektet vill skapa en sockenvid jordbruksstatistik för Sverige inom nutida gränser och perioderna cirka 1570, 1630, 1690, 1750 och 1810 som kan komplettera den folkmängdsstatistik för samma perioder som redan publicerats år 2000 (Lennart Palm, "Folkmängden i Sveriges socknar och kommuner 1571-1997"). Denna jordbruksstatistik kommer att ge lättillgängliga data för en stor mängd användare, t ex historiker, ekonomhistoriker, kulturgeografer, geografer, sociologer, etnologer, länsstyrelsernas kulturmiljöplanerare, riksantikvarieämbetets och länsmuseernas personal, projektarbetande skolungdom, hembygdsforskare.

This data set contains data, HTML and document files downloaded and saved from the first incarnation of the Deep Space 1 Data web site. These data, despite superficial appearances, are not in a PDS standard format, nor is there sufficient documentation on format or content to prepare the data for external review or proper archiving. The bits were saved before the web site disappeared (c.2004) without explanation, in the hopes that resources could be found to decipher them.

IntroductionUK Power Network maintains the 132kV voltage level network and below. An important part of the distribution network is distributing this electricity across our regions through circuits. Electricity enters our network through Super Grid Transformers at substations shared with National Grid we call Grid Supply Points. It is then sent at across our 132 kV Circuits towards our grid substations and primary substations. These circuits can be viewed on the single line diagrams in our Long-Term Development Statements (LTDS) and the underlying data is then found in the LTDS tables.

This dataset provides half-hourly current and power flow data across these named circuits from 2021 through to the previous month across our license areas. The data are aligned with the same naming convention as the LTDS for improved interoperability.

Care is taken to protect the private affairs of companies connected to the 132 kV network, resulting in the redaction of certain circuits. Where redacted, we provide monthly statistics to continue to add value where possible. Where monthly statistics exist but half-hourly is absent, this data has been redacted.

To find which circuit you are looking for, use the ‘ltds_line_name’ that can be cross-referenced in the 132kV Circuits Monthly Data, which describes by month what circuits were triaged, if they could be made public, and what the monthly statistics are of that site.

If you want to download all this data, it is perhaps more convenient from our public sharepoint: Sharepoint

This dataset is part of a larger endeavour to share more operational data on UK Power Networks assets. Please visit our Network Operational Data Dashboard for more operational datasets.

Methodological Approach

The dataset is not derived, it is the measurements from our network stored in our historian.

The measurement devices are taken from current transformers attached to the cable at the circuit breaker, and power is derived combining this with the data from voltage transformers physically attached to the busbar. The historian stores datasets based on a report-by-exception process, such that a certain deviation from the present value must be reached before logging a point measurement to the historian. We extract the data following a 30-min time weighted averaging method to get half-hourly values. Where there are no measurements logged in the period, the data provided is blank; due to the report-by-exception process, it may be appropriate to forward fill this data for shorter gaps.

We developed a data redactions process to protect the privacy of companies according to the Utilities Act 2000 section 105.1.b, which requires UK Power Networks to not disclose information relating to the affairs of a business. For this reason, where the demand of a private customer is derivable from our data and that data is not already public information (e.g., data provided via Elexon on the Balancing Mechanism), we redact the half-hourly time series, and provide only the monthly averages. This redaction process considers the correlation of all the data, of only corresponding periods where the customer is active, the first order difference of all the data, and the first order difference of only corresponding periods where the customer is active. Should any of these four tests have a high linear correlation, the data is deemed redacted. This process is not simply applied to only the circuit of the customer, but of the surrounding circuits that would also reveal the signal of that customer.

The directionality of the data is not consistent within this dataset. Where directionality was ascertainable, we arrange the power data in the direction of the LTDS "from node" to the LTDS "to node". Measurements of current do not indicate directionality and are instead positive regardless of direction. In some circumstances, the polarity can be negative, and depends on the data commissioner's decision on what the operators in the control room might find most helpful in ensuring reliable and secure network operation.

Quality Control Statement

The data is provided "as is".

In the design and delivery process adopted by the DSO, customer feedback and guidance is considered at each phase of the project. One of the earliest steers was that raw data was preferable. This means that we do not perform prior quality control screening to our raw network data. The result of this decision is that network rearrangements and other periods of non-intact running of the network are present throughout the dataset, which has the potential to misconstrue the true utilisation of the network, which is determined regulatorily by considering only by in-tact running arrangements. Therefore, taking the maximum or minimum of these measurements are not a reliable method of correctly ascertaining the true utilisation. This does have the intended added benefit of giving a realistic view of how the network was operated. The critical feedback was that our customers have a desire to understand what would have been the impact to them under real operational conditions. As such, this dataset offers unique insight into that.

Assurance Statement

Creating this dataset involved a lot of human data imputation. At UK Power Networks, we have differing software to run the network operationally (ADMS) and to plan and study the network (PowerFactory). The measurement devices are intended to primarily inform the network operators of the real time condition of the network, and importantly, the network drawings visible in the LTDS are a planning approach, which differs to the operational. To compile this dataset, we made the union between the two modes of operating manually. A team of data scientists, data engineers, and power system engineers manually identified the LTDS circuit from the single line diagram, identified the line name from LTDS Table 2a/b, then identified the same circuit in ADMS to identify the measurement data tags. This was then manually inputted to a spreadsheet. Any influential customers to that circuit were noted using ADMS and the single line diagrams. From there, a python code is used to perform the triage and compilation of the datasets.

There is potential for human error during the manual data processing. These issues can include missing circuits, incorrectly labelled circuits, incorrectly identified measurement data tags, incorrectly interpreted directionality. Whilst care has been taken to minimise the risk of these issues, they may persist in the provided dataset. Any uncertain behaviour observed by using this data should be reported to allow us to correct as fast as possible.

Additional Information

Definitions of key terms related to this dataset can be found in the Open Data Portal Glossary.

Download dataset information: Metadata (JSON)

Introduction

UK Power Network maintains the 132kV voltage level network and below. An important part of the distribution network is distributing this electricity across our regions through circuits. Electricity enters our network through Super Grid Transformers at substations shared with National Grid we call Grid Supply Points. It is then sent at across our 132 kV Circuits towards our grid substations and primary substations. From there, electricity is distributed along the 33 kV circuits to bring it closer to the home. These circuits can be viewed on the single line diagrams in our Long-Term Development Statements (LTDS) and the underlying data is then found in the LTDS tables.

This dataset provides half-hourly current and power flow data across these named circuits from 2021 through to the previous month in our South Eastern Power Networks (SPN) licence area. The data are aligned with the same naming convention as the LTDS for improved interoperability.

Care is taken to protect the private affairs of companies connected to the 33 kV network, resulting in the redaction of certain circuits. Where redacted, we provide monthly statistics to continue to add value where possible. Where monthly statistics exist but half-hourly is absent, this data has been redacted.

To find which circuit you are looking for, use the ‘ltds_line_name’ that can be cross referenced in the 33kV Circuits Monthly Data, which describes by month what circuits were triaged, if they could be made public, and what the monthly statistics are of that site.

If you want to download all this data, it is perhaps more convenient from our public sharepoint: Sharepoint

This dataset is part of a larger endeavour to share more operational data on UK Power Networks assets. Please visit our Network Operational Data Dashboard for more operational datasets.

Methodological Approach The dataset is not derived, it is the measurements from our network stored in our historian. The measurement devices are taken from current transformers attached to the cable at the circuit breaker, and power is derived combining this with the data from voltage transformers physically attached to the busbar. The historian stores datasets based on a report-by-exception process, such that a certain deviation from the present value must be reached before logging a point measurement to the historian. We extract the data following a 30-min time weighted averaging method to get half-hourly values. Where there are no measurements logged in the period, the data provided is blank; due to the report-by-exception process, it may be appropriate to forward fill this data for shorter gaps. We developed a data redactions process to protect the privacy or companies according to the Utilities Act 2000 section 105.1.b, which requires UK Power Networks to not disclose information relating to the affairs of a business. For this reason, where the demand of a private customer is derivable from our data and that data is not already public information (e.g., data provided via Elexon on the Balancing Mechanism), we redact the half-hourly time series, and provide only the monthly averages. This redaction process considers the correlation of all the data, of only corresponding periods where the customer is active, the first order difference of all the data, and the first order difference of only corresponding periods where the customer is active. Should any of these four tests have a high linear correlation, the data is deemed redacted. This process is not simply applied to only the circuit of the customer, but of the surrounding circuits that would also reveal the signal of that customer. The directionality of the data is not consistent within this dataset. Where directionality was ascertainable, we arrange the power data in the direction of the LTDS "from node" to the LTDS "to node". Measurements of current do not indicate directionality and are instead positive regardless of direction. In some circumstances, the polarity can be negative, and depends on the data commissioner's decision on what the operators in the control room might find most helpful in ensuring reliable and secure network operation. Quality Control Statement The data is provided "as is".
In the design and delivery process adopted by the DSO, customer feedback and guidance is considered at each phase of the project. One of the earliest steers was that raw data was preferable. This means that we do not perform prior quality control screening to our raw network data. The result of this decision is that network rearrangements and other periods of non-intact running of the network are present throughout the dataset, which has the potential to misconstrue the true utilisation of the network, which is determined regulatorily by considering only by in-tact running arrangements. Therefore, taking the maximum or minimum of these measurements are not a reliable method of correctly ascertaining the true utilisation. This does have the intended added benefit of giving a realistic view of how the network was operated. The critical feedback was that our customers have a desire to understand what would have been the impact to them under real operational conditions. As such, this dataset offers unique insight into that. Assurance StatementCreating this dataset involved a lot of human data imputation. At UK Power Networks, we have differing software to run the network operationally (ADMS) and to plan and study the network (PowerFactory). The measurement devices are intended to primarily inform the network operators of the real time condition of the network, and importantly, the network drawings visible in the LTDS are a planning approach, which differs to the operational. To compile this dataset, we made the union between the two modes of operating manually. A team of data scientists, data engineers, and power system engineers manually identified the LTDS circuit from the single line diagram, identified the line name from LTDS Table 2a/b, then identified the same circuit in ADMS to identify the measurement data tags. This was then manually inputted to a spreadsheet. Any influential customers to that circuit were noted using ADMS and the single line diagrams. From there, a python code is used to perform the triage and compilation of the datasets. There is potential for human error during the manual data processing. These issues can include missing circuits, incorrectly labelled circuits, incorrectly identified measurement data tags, incorrectly interpreted directionality. Whilst care has been taken to minimise the risk of these issues, they may persist in the provided dataset. Any uncertain behaviour observed by using this data should be reported to allow us to correct as fast as possible. Additional Information Definitions of key terms related to this dataset can be found in the Open Data Portal Glossary. Download dataset information: Metadata (JSON)We would be grateful if you find this dataset useful to submit a “reuse” case study to tell us what you did and how you used it. This enables us to drive our direction and gain better understanding for how we improve our data offering in the future. Click here for more information:Open Data Portal Reuses — UK Power Networks

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Good Thunder by gender across 18 age groups. It lists the male and female population in each age group along with the gender ratio for Good Thunder. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Good Thunder by gender and age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group for both Men and Women in Good Thunder. Additionally, it can be used to see how the gender ratio changes from birth to senior most age group and male to female ratio across each age group for Good Thunder.

Key observations

Largest age group (population): Male # 55-59 years (69) | Female # 50-54 years (29). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis.

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Good Thunder population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Good Thunder is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Good Thunder is shown in the following column.
• Gender Ratio: Also known as the sex ratio, this column displays the number of males per 100 females in Good Thunder for each age group.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Good Thunder Population by Gender. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Good Hope by gender across 18 age groups. It lists the male and female population in each age group along with the gender ratio for Good Hope. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Good Hope by gender and age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group for both Men and Women in Good Hope. Additionally, it can be used to see how the gender ratio changes from birth to senior most age group and male to female ratio across each age group for Good Hope.

Key observations

Largest age group (population): Male # 65-69 years (25) | Female # 30-34 years (38). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis.

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Good Hope population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Good Hope is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Good Hope is shown in the following column.
• Gender Ratio: Also known as the sex ratio, this column displays the number of males per 100 females in Good Hope for each age group.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Good Hope Population by Gender. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Good Hope township by gender, including both male and female populations. This dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Good Hope township across both sexes and to determine which sex constitutes the majority.

Key observations

There is a majority of male population, with 60.0% of total population being male. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis. No further analysis is done on the data reported from the Census Bureau.

Variables / Data Columns

• Gender: This column displays the Gender (Male / Female)
• Population: The population of the gender in the Good Hope township is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each gender as a proportion of Good Hope township total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Good Hope township Population by Gender. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Good Hope township by gender, including both male and female populations. This dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Good Hope township across both sexes and to determine which sex constitutes the majority.

Key observations

There is a slight majority of female population, with 52.38% of total population being female. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis. No further analysis is done on the data reported from the Census Bureau.

Variables / Data Columns

• Gender: This column displays the Gender (Male / Female)
• Population: The population of the gender in the Good Hope township is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each gender as a proportion of Good Hope township total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Good Hope township Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Good Hope population by race and ethnicity. The dataset can be utilized to understand the racial distribution of Good Hope.

Content

The dataset will have the following datasets when applicable

Please note that in case when either of Hispanic or Non-Hispanic population doesnt exist, the respective dataset will not be available (as there will not be a population subset applicable for the same)

• Good Hope, AL Population Breakdown by Race
• Good Hope, AL Non-Hispanic Population Breakdown by Race
• Good Hope, AL Hispanic or Latino Population Distribution by Their Ancestries

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.