ekce

Keybase proof

I hereby claim:

• I am ekce on github.
• I am mohamarrios (https://keybase.io/mohamarrios) on keybase.
• I have a public key ASDCNZyAiVJBtNH70FATzPRmaS9lhzNBOa5L4OjWSAP6Wwo

To claim this, I am signing this object:

ekce

Project 3

Live version may be viewed at:
http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~mriosflo/project3/project3.html

Data

Project 3 had multiple data sets as follows:

BRFSS

The largest data set was a subset of CDC data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

ekce

Project 2

Data

The data set comes from a UK national survey that has been running since 1940. It has undergone multiple changes over the years (eg. being merged with other surveys, adding Northern Ireland to the survey, adjusting values, stopping and starting, etc...). The survey collects UK Household food consumption data from participants who maintain food diaries and self report the data. Due to adjustments one ought to work with data from 1974 onwards (per my understanding).

The data set is huge and at times messy and even nonsensical. It spans from 1974 to 2014 in one dimension and across 258 food items in another. Each food item has some defined units (eg. grams, milliliters, etc...) and then a value for each year that it was collected. The food items are classified into food groups with a tree like structure (subgroups). Each food group is also assigned a unit and contains a value computed by summing over the food items contained in the group. However, food groups will indiscriminately mix food

ekce

Project 1

Data

The data comes from a study titled, Behavioral Appropriateness and Situational Constraint as Dimensions of Social Behavior, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In the paper 52 subjects were asked to keep diaries for a short period after which Behaviors and Situations were aggregated from the diaries. From this 15 Behaviors and 15 Situations were derived resulting in 225 possible pairings of Behaviors with Situations (15*15 = 225). Then the subjects were shown individual pairings (in a fixed random order) and asked to rate their appropriateness on a scale from 0 to 9 (10-point scale). Afterwards the results were tabulated and a mean was computed for each pair thus resulting in a 15 by 15 matrix of mean appropriateness ratings of behaviors in situations.

The paper goes on to have some discussion about the meaning of the results and what it may mean to average out a behavior across all of its situations (and vice versa).

I suspect that subjects were