DATA607 WK6 Project 2

See the Code

Dataset 1: Nutrition

Introduction

This Dataset is wide with 25 variables and 5591 observations. There are 5 different (Breastfeeding, Sugary Drinks, Physical Activity, Fruits and Vegetables and Televison watching), 5 topics and 27 different questions. Each question should have their own column based on the class they belong to since some values are listed as percentages, averages and “number of”. A table is created for each class. Only 2 tables will be focused on in this dataset for this project. For more information, visit HeathData.gov

Full Data

YearStart YearEnd LocationAbbr LocationDesc Datasource Class Topic Question Data_Value_Unit Data_Value_Type Data_Value Data_Value_Alt Data_Value_Footnote_Symbol Data_Value_Footnote Total GeoLocation ClassID TopicID QuestionID DataValueTypeID LocationID StratificationCategory1 Stratification1 StratificationCategoryId1 StratificationID1
2018 2018 AL Alabama Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 16.5 16.5 Total (32.84057112200048, -86.63186076199969) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 1 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 AK Alaska Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 3.4 3.4 Total (64.84507995700051, -147.72205903599973) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 2 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 AZ Arizona Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 6.8 6.8 Total (34.865970280000454, -111.76381127699972) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 4 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 AR Arkansas Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 21.7 21.7 Total (34.74865012400045, -92.27449074299966) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 5 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 CA California Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 44.8 44.8 Total (37.63864012300047, -120.99999953799971) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 6 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 CO Colorado Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 48.9 48.9 Total (38.843840757000464, -106.13361092099967) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 8 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 CT Connecticut Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 46.3 46.3 Total (41.56266102000046, -72.64984095199964) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 9 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 DE Delaware Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 88.1 88.1 Total (39.008830667000495, -75.57774116799965) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 10 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 DC District of Columbia Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 49 49.0 Total (38.89037138500049, -77.03196112699965) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 11 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 FL Florida Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 17.5 17.5 Total (28.932040377000476, -81.92896053899966) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 12 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 GA Georgia Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 31.1 31.1 Total (32.83968109300048, -83.62758034599966) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 13 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 GU Guam Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 0 0.0 Total (13.444304, 144.793731) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 66 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 HI Hawaii Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 12.1 12.1 Total (21.304850435000446, -157.85774940299973) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 15 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 ID Idaho Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 9.8 9.8 Total (43.682630005000476, -114.3637300419997) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 16 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 IL Illinois Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 22.3 22.3 Total (40.48501028300046, -88.99771017799969) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 17 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 IN Indiana Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 31 31.0 Total (39.766910452000445, -86.14996019399968) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 18 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 IA Iowa Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 8.1 8.1 Total (42.46940091300047, -93.81649055599968) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 19 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 KS Kansas Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 41.1 41.1 Total (38.34774030000045, -98.20078122699965) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 20 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 KY Kentucky Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 24.5 24.5 Total (37.645970271000465, -84.77497104799966) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 21 Total Total OVR OVERALL
2018 2018 LA Louisiana Breastfeeding Surveillance Sources Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) NA Value 41.6 41.6 Total (31.31266064400046, -92.44568007099969) BF BF2 Q016 VALUE 22 Total Total OVR OVERALL

Subset

Some of the columns were removed as they are not relevant to the analysis.
YearStart YearEnd LocationDesc Class Topic Question Data_Value GeoLocation
2018 2018 Alabama Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 16.5 (32.84057112200048, -86.63186076199969)
2018 2018 Alaska Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 3.4 (64.84507995700051, -147.72205903599973)
2018 2018 Arizona Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 6.8 (34.865970280000454, -111.76381127699972)
2018 2018 Arkansas Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 21.7 (34.74865012400045, -92.27449074299966)
2018 2018 California Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 44.8 (37.63864012300047, -120.99999953799971)
2018 2018 Colorado Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 48.9 (38.843840757000464, -106.13361092099967)
2018 2018 Connecticut Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 46.3 (41.56266102000046, -72.64984095199964)
2018 2018 Delaware Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 88.1 (39.008830667000495, -75.57774116799965)
2018 2018 District of Columbia Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 49 (38.89037138500049, -77.03196112699965)
2018 2018 Florida Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 17.5 (28.932040377000476, -81.92896053899966)
2018 2018 Georgia Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 31.1 (32.83968109300048, -83.62758034599966)
2018 2018 Guam Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 0 (13.444304, 144.793731)
2018 2018 Hawaii Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 12.1 (21.304850435000446, -157.85774940299973)
2018 2018 Idaho Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 9.8 (43.682630005000476, -114.3637300419997)
2018 2018 Illinois Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 22.3 (40.48501028300046, -88.99771017799969)
2018 2018 Indiana Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 31 (39.766910452000445, -86.14996019399968)
2018 2018 Iowa Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 8.1 (42.46940091300047, -93.81649055599968)
2018 2018 Kansas Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 41.1 (38.34774030000045, -98.20078122699965)
2018 2018 Kentucky Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 24.5 (37.645970271000465, -84.77497104799966)
2018 2018 Louisiana Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 41.6 (31.31266064400046, -92.44568007099969)
2018 2018 Maine Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 18.4 (45.254228894000505, -68.98503133599962)
2018 2018 Maryland Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 18.2 (39.29058096400047, -76.60926011099963)
2018 2018 Massachusetts Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 19 (42.27687047000046, -72.08269067499964)
2018 2018 Michigan Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 30.3 (44.6613195430005, -84.71439026999968)
2018 2018 Minnesota Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 30.6 (46.35564873600049, -94.79420050299967)
2018 2018 Mississippi Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 12.5 (32.745510099000455, -89.53803082499968)
2018 2018 Missouri Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 13.2 (38.635790776000476, -92.56630005299968)
2018 2018 Montana Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 27.9 (47.06652897200047, -109.42442064499971)
2018 2018 National Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 26.1
2018 2018 Nebraska Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) 12.8 (41.6410409880005, -99.36572062299967)

Areas Covered

Class Topic Question
Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of live births occurring at facilities designated as “baby friendly” by the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI)
Sugar Drinks Sugar Drinks - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of secondary schools that allowed students to purchase soda pop or fruit drinks from one or more vending machines or at the school store, canteen, or snack bar
Sugar Drinks Sugar Drinks - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of secondary schools that allowed students to purchase sports drinks from one or more vending machines or at the school store, canteen, or snack bar
Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Average Maternity Practice in Infant Nutrition and Care (mPINC) score among hospitals and birthing facilities
Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Number of La Leche League leaders per 1,000 live births
Breastfeeding Breastfeeding - Environmental or Policy Supports Number of International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) per 1,000 live births
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports Number of food hubs in each state
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports State child care regulations align with national standards for serving vegetables
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports Number of farmers markets per 100,000 residents
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of farmers markets that accept SNAP benefits
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of farmers markets that accept WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program coupons
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports State child care regulations align with national standards for serving fruits
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports State-level farm to school/preschool policy
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports State child care regulations align with national standards for moderate- to vigorous- intensity physical activity for preschoolers
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports State has adopted some form of a Complete Streets policy
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports State provides guidance on policies for school districts or schools on joint-use agreements for physical activity facilities
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports State provides guidance on policies for school districts or schools on recess
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports State provides guidance on policies for school districts or schools on time spent in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity during physical education class
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports State provides guidance on policies for school districts or schools on walking or biking to or from school
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of secondary schools that offered a self-serve salad bar to students
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports Existence of state-level Food Policy Council
Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and Vegetables - Environmental or Policy Supports Number of local food policy councils in each state
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of youth with parks or playground areas, community centers and sidewalks or walking paths available in their neighborhood
Sugar Drinks Sugar Drinks - Environmental or Policy Supports State child care regulations align with national standards for avoiding sugar, including concentrated sweets such as candy, sodas, sweetened drinks, fruit nectars, and flavored milk
Television Viewing Television Viewing - Environmental or Policy Supports State child care regulations align with national standards for limiting total media time for children 2 years or older to not more than 30 minutes once a week
Television Viewing Television Viewing - Environmental or Policy Supports State child care regulations align with national standards for prohibiting use of media and computers with children younger than 2 years
Physical Activity Physical Activity - Environmental or Policy Supports Percent of U.S. population living within 1/2 mile of a park

Breast Feeding

Please note no data were collected for the Le Leche League until 2011.
YearStart YearEnd LocationDesc Avg Maternity Practice Score Certified Lactation Consultants per 1000 births La Leche League Leaders per 1000 births Percent of births at Baby Friendly Facilities
2007 2007 Alabama 55 1.9 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Alaska 73 5.8 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Arizona 62 1.3 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Arkansas 48 1.7 NA 0.0
2007 2007 California 69 1.7 NA 3.3
2007 2007 Colorado 66 2.0 NA 2.1
2007 2007 Connecticut 70 3.8 NA 12.4
2007 2007 Delaware 63 2.9 NA 0.0
2007 2007 District of Columbia 76 1.1 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Florida 68 1.6 NA 1.8
2007 2007 Georgia 56 1.7 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Hawaii 62 2.5 NA 10.5
2007 2007 Idaho 65 2.0 NA 6.1
2007 2007 Illinois 60 2.0 NA 1.5
2007 2007 Indiana 62 2.4 NA 2.4
2007 2007 Iowa 61 2.0 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Kansas 59 2.2 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Kentucky 57 2.0 NA 5.7
2007 2007 Louisiana 54 1.4 NA 0.0
2007 2007 Maine 77 5.3 NA 17.4


Live Birth at Baby Friendly Facilities Summary (%)

   Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.    NA's 
  0.000   0.000   5.500   9.576  13.000  99.800       1 


Here the distribution is skewed to the right. The peak of the histogram hits where as stated in the summary above at an average of 9%. Not every child will be born at a “baby-friendly” facility. Usually when someone is about to give birth (unplanned), they’re taken to the nearest hospital/clinic unless the birth is as expected. Also, there is a possibility of the state or city being small and there is one or two clinics around. In this case, the percentage will be higher of having babies born at one of those “baby-friendly” facilities.


This line graph shows averages among baby facilities over a 10 year span. It displays how much attention was drawn to the awareness of Practice in Infant nutrition and care. As the years increase more peope are becoming more involved and educated about this practce. As we can see, by the end of 2007-2008 most average scores ranged up to about 82 but after 2010 onto 2017 we see the scores increased atleast 17%.

Sugar Drinks

Year LocationDesc Latitude Longitude Percent of secondary school that allow Soda or Fruit Drinks Percent of secondary school that allow Sport Drinks Avoid Sugar?
1 2010 Alabama 32.84057 -86.63186 21.1 38.8 No
2 2010 Alaska 64.84508 -147.72206 25.9 38.0 No
3 2010 Arizona 34.86597 -111.76381 22.8 35.3 No
4 2010 Arkansas 34.74865 -92.27449 30.4 39.6 No
5 2010 California 37.63864 -121.00000 11.0 51.9 No
6 2010 Colorado 38.84384 -106.13361 23.4 50.7 No
7 2010 Connecticut 41.56266 -72.64984 3.1 8.4 No
8 2010 Delaware 39.00883 -75.57774 14.1 34.4 No
10 2010 Florida 28.93204 -81.92896 37.4 58.5 No
11 2010 Georgia 32.83968 -83.62758 42.5 62.5 No
13 2010 Hawaii 21.30485 -157.85775 8.8 16.1 No
14 2010 Idaho 43.68263 -114.36373 49.7 56.3 No
16 2010 Indiana 39.76691 -86.14996 47.4 67.7 No
17 2010 Iowa 42.46940 -93.81649 37.9 65.5 No
18 2010 Kansas 38.34774 -98.20078 50.3 69.0 No
19 2010 Kentucky 37.64597 -84.77497 34.3 46.1 No
20 2010 Louisiana 31.31266 -92.44568 41.7 60.2 No
21 2010 Maine 45.25423 -68.98503 10.9 40.3 No
22 2010 Maryland 39.29058 -76.60926 33.3 47.8 No
23 2010 Massachusetts 42.27687 -72.08269 15.6 37.1 No
24 2010 Michigan 44.66132 -84.71439 37.5 62.5 No
25 2010 Minnesota 46.35565 -94.79420 41.5 66.1 No
26 2010 Mississippi 32.74551 -89.53803 16.6 40.6 No
27 2010 Missouri 38.63579 -92.56630 43.8 63.9 No
28 2010 Montana 47.06653 -109.42442 43.1 71.4 No
30 2010 Nebraska 41.64104 -99.36572 48.7 69.6 No
31 2010 Nevada 39.49324 -117.07184 11.5 66.5 No
32 2010 New Hampshire 43.65595 -71.50036 19.2 42.9 No
33 2010 New Jersey 40.13057 -74.27369 15.5 40.5 No
34 2010 New Mexico 34.52088 -106.24058 16.0 39.2 No


Which State’s secondary schools prevent students from buying soda, fruit or sport drinks from venging machines?


They all seem to indicate NO about not allowing students to buy drinks other than water at school.


Soda Summary

   Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
   2.90   14.93   22.65   24.68   34.38   56.10 


Sports Summary

   Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
   6.70   35.23   43.60   43.94   56.62   73.80 


Accoring to the graphs above, it seems as though more schools allowed kids to drink sports drinks rather than soda or fruit drinks. Graph A is slightly skewed to the right. They both do not show any extreme deviations so they can both come from a normal model. For soda and sugar drinks, the highest counts range between 10% and 25% while sports drinks populate most between 35% and 55%. This is proven via the summary above mentioning the mean and median for this data.

A lot of times fruit or soda drinks have a empty calories and tons of sugar which make kids hyper then they become lethargic. On the other hand, sport drinks are viewed to replenish energy and keeping kids active. Many sport drinks are endorsed by athletes who kids look up to and wishes to emulate. Schools encourage physical fitness among kids hence why majority of them would allow more sport drinks than soda/fruit drinks.

Conclusion

The awareness of educating moms the importance of breast feeding is rising. Secondary schools in every state will continue to allow students to buy drinks other than water from the schools. We can all agree that kids are active with or without sugar.


Dataset 2: Google Play Store

Introduction

This dataset was chosen to have an idea of how the apps are used with the Google Play Store. We will discover which types of apps are downloaded the most and which ones are people likely to pay for. We also get a view of how reviews or ratings affect what people download. Find dataset at Kaggle.com for further details.

Here is a view of the dataset.

App Category Rating Reviews Size Installs Type Price Content.Rating Genres Last.Updated Current.Ver Android.Ver
Photo Editor & Candy Camera & Grid & ScrapBook ART_AND_DESIGN 4.1 159 19M 10,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design January 7, 2018 1.0.0 4.0.3 and up
Coloring book moana ART_AND_DESIGN 3.9 967 14M 500,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design;Pretend Play January 15, 2018 2.0.0 4.0.3 and up
U Launcher Lite – FREE Live Cool Themes, Hide Apps ART_AND_DESIGN 4.7 87510 8.7M 5,000,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design August 1, 2018 1.2.4 4.0.3 and up
Sketch - Draw & Paint ART_AND_DESIGN 4.5 215644 25M 50,000,000+ Free 0 Teen Art & Design June 8, 2018 Varies with device 4.2 and up
Pixel Draw - Number Art Coloring Book ART_AND_DESIGN 4.3 967 2.8M 100,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design;Creativity June 20, 2018 1.1 4.4 and up
Paper flowers instructions ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 167 5.6M 50,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design March 26, 2017 1.0 2.3 and up
Smoke Effect Photo Maker - Smoke Editor ART_AND_DESIGN 3.8 178 19M 50,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design April 26, 2018 1.1 4.0.3 and up
Infinite Painter ART_AND_DESIGN 4.1 36815 29M 1,000,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design June 14, 2018 6.1.61.1 4.2 and up
Garden Coloring Book ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 13791 33M 1,000,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design September 20, 2017 2.9.2 3.0 and up
Kids Paint Free - Drawing Fun ART_AND_DESIGN 4.7 121 3.1M 10,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design;Creativity July 3, 2018 2.8 4.0.3 and up
Text on Photo - Fonteee ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 13880 28M 1,000,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design October 27, 2017 1.0.4 4.1 and up
Name Art Photo Editor - Focus n Filters ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 8788 12M 1,000,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design July 31, 2018 1.0.15 4.0 and up
Tattoo Name On My Photo Editor ART_AND_DESIGN 4.2 44829 20M 10,000,000+ Free 0 Teen Art & Design April 2, 2018 3.8 4.1 and up
Mandala Coloring Book ART_AND_DESIGN 4.6 4326 21M 100,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design June 26, 2018 1.0.4 4.4 and up
3D Color Pixel by Number - Sandbox Art Coloring ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 1518 37M 100,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design August 3, 2018 1.2.3 2.3 and up
Learn To Draw Kawaii Characters ART_AND_DESIGN 3.2 55 2.7M 5,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design June 6, 2018 NaN 4.2 and up
Photo Designer - Write your name with shapes ART_AND_DESIGN 4.7 3632 5.5M 500,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design July 31, 2018 3.1 4.1 and up
350 Diy Room Decor Ideas ART_AND_DESIGN 4.5 27 17M 10,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design November 7, 2017 1.0 2.3 and up
FlipaClip - Cartoon animation ART_AND_DESIGN 4.3 194216 39M 5,000,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design August 3, 2018 2.2.5 4.0.3 and up
ibis Paint X ART_AND_DESIGN 4.6 224399 31M 10,000,000+ Free 0 Everyone Art & Design July 30, 2018 5.5.4 4.1 and up

Subset but cleaned data

Category Rating Reviews Size(MB) Installs Type Price Content.Rating
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.1 159 19.0 10000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 3.9 967 14.0 500000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.7 87510 8.7 5000000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.5 215644 25.0 50000000 Free 0 Teen
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.3 967 2.8 100000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 167 5.6 50000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 3.8 178 19.0 50000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.1 36815 29.0 1000000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 13791 33.0 1000000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.7 121 3.1 10000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 13880 28.0 1000000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 8788 12.0 1000000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.2 44829 20.0 10000000 Free 0 Teen
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.6 4326 21.0 100000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.4 1518 37.0 100000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 3.2 55 2.7 5000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.7 3632 5.5 500000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.5 27 17.0 10000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.3 194216 39.0 5000000 Free 0 Everyone
ART_AND_DESIGN 4.6 224399 31.0 10000000 Free 0 Everyone

Downloads


Games are the most downloaded types of apps with Communication second. It seems as though apps that are usually paid for has the least set of downloads which is understandable. Sometimes, most downloaded apps does not mean that people like them but just wanted to pursue a trial first then maybe delete them.

Content Ratings

Grade Count Relative_Frequency Cummulative_Frequency
Adults only 18+ 3 0.0002768 0.0002768
Everyone 8714 0.8039487 0.8042255
Everyone 10+ 413 0.0381031 0.8423286
Mature 17+ 499 0.0460375 0.8883661
Teen 1208 0.1114494 0.9998155
Unrated 2 0.0001845 1.0000000

80% of the apps are made for Everyone to use.

Most Expensive

Assuming $50 and up is considered expensive then most expensive apps belong in Medical and Lifestyle. People are willing to pay for apps that will benefit them in the long run.
Expensive Apps
Category Rating Reviews Size(MB) Installs Type Price Content.Rating
MEDICAL NA 10 28.0 1000 Paid 74.99 Everyone
MEDICAL 4.6 92 32.0 1000 Paid 79.99 Everyone
MEDICAL 4.6 92 32.0 1000 Paid 79.99 Everyone
BUSINESS NA 6 10.0 10 Paid 89.99 Everyone
EVENTS NA 0 6.7 1 Paid 109.99 Everyone
PRODUCTIVITY NA 0 5.4 0 Paid 154.99 Everyone
MEDICAL NA 0 3.2 0 Paid 200.00 Everyone
LIFESTYLE 3.8 411 2.6 10000 Paid 299.99 Everyone
LIFESTYLE 2.9 41 2.9 1000 Paid 379.99 Everyone
FAMILY 3.6 217 4.9 10000 Paid 389.99 Everyone
FINANCE NA 0 1.4 0 Paid 394.99 Everyone
FAMILY 4.3 6 1.5 100 Paid 399.99 Everyone
LIFESTYLE 3.8 718 26.0 10000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
LIFESTYLE 3.8 3547 1.8 100000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
FAMILY 4.0 856 8.7 10000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
FINANCE 4.1 1867 4.7 50000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
FINANCE 3.8 93 22.0 1000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
FINANCE 3.5 472 965.0 5000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
FAMILY 4.4 201 2.7 5000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
FINANCE 4.1 129 2.7 1000 Paid 399.99 Teen
FINANCE 4.3 180 3.8 5000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
FINANCE 4.0 36 41.0 1000 Paid 399.99 Everyone
LIFESTYLE NA 0 40.0 0 Paid 399.99 Everyone
LIFESTYLE 3.6 275 7.3 10000 Paid 400.00 Everyone

Average Ratings

   Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.    NA's 
  1.000   4.000   4.300   4.192   4.500   5.000    1473 

This histogram is skewed to the lower end. 73% of the ratings scores fall within 4 and 5. This shows people are overall satisfied with majority of the apps in the Google Play Store.


Apps in Categories such as Education, Entertainment and Weather seems to do really well with the fact that their lowest ratings are no lower than 3.

Relationship?

Which explanatory variable affects how much time an app is installed or downloaded: Rating or Reviews?


There is a strong positive correlation between Installs and Reviews. This shows that people down load apps based on the reviews more than they do over the ratings. There are some outliers present in both plots especially in the relationship between Installs and Rating.

Conclusion

What can be concluded from the reports above in the Google Play Store is that, people generally like to know how a product is doing before they invest time into it. Medical anf Finance apps are the apps people would most likely pay for. On the other hand Gaming and Communication are the top categories people download apps and are free for the public.


Dataset 3: Superbowl

Introduction

The data in this section is more a qualitative one. It was used to find out which teams or players had the most wins. Find the table on ESPN website.

Untidy

NULL.V1 NULL.V2 NULL.V3
NO. PLAYER HIGHLIGHTS
I Bart Starr, QB, Green Bay Two touchdown passes
II Bart Starr, QB, Green Bay 202 yards passing, 1 TD
III Joe Namath, QB, New York Jets 206 yards passing
IV Len Dawson, QB, Kansas City 142 yards passing, 1 TD
V Chuck Howley, LB, Dallas Two interceptions, fumble recovery
VI Roger Staubach, QB, Dallas 119 yards passing, 2 TDs
VII Jake Scott, S, Miami Two interceptions
VIII Larry Csonka, FB, Miami 33 carries, 145 yards rushing, 2 TDs
IX Franco Harris, RB, Pittsburgh 158 yards rushing, 1 TD
X Lynn Swann, WR, Pittsburgh 4 catches, 161 yards, 1 TD
XI Fred Biletnikoff, WR, Oakland 4 catches, 79 yards
XII Harvey Martin & Randy White, DL, Dallas Led Dallas defense that forced eight turnovers
XIII Terry Bradshaw, QB, Pittsburgh 318 yards passing, 4 TDs
XIV Terry Bradshaw, QB, Pittsburgh 309 yards passing, 2 TDs
XV Jim Plunkett, QB, Oakland 261 yards passing, 3 TDs
XVI Joe Montana, QB, San Francisco 157 yards passing, 1 TD
XVII John Riggins, RB, Washington 166 yards rushing, 1 TD
XVIII Marcus Allen, RB, Los Angeles Raiders 20 carries, 191 yards rushing, 2 TDs
XIX Joe Montana, QB, San Francisco 331 yards passing, 3 TDs

Tidy

SUPERBOWL Player Position Team HIGHLIGHTS
2 I Bart Starr QB Green Bay Two touchdown passes
3 II Bart Starr QB Green Bay 202 yards passing, 1 TD
4 III Joe Namath QB New York Jets 206 yards passing
5 IV Len Dawson QB Kansas City 142 yards passing, 1 TD
6 V Chuck Howley LB Dallas Two interceptions, fumble recovery
7 VI Roger Staubach QB Dallas 119 yards passing, 2 TDs

TOP MVP PLAYER

The top player is Tom Brady with 4 wins! 
He won the following Superbowls:
 XXXVI XXXVIII XLIX LI

Positions Winners Played

Position Position_name
QB Quaterback
LB Line Backer
S Safety
FB Fullback
RB Running Back
WR Wide Receiver
DL Defense Line
DE Defensive End
CB Cornerback
KR Kick Returner

Which position is best?


Proof that Quaterback player is the best on the teams in football.

Javern Wilson

March 10, 2019