Skip to content
#data science Dataset Open access

Quadrivium: Reconstructive Harmonization of U.S. Higher-Education Survey Data

Oct 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Abstract

An integrated database harmonizing multiple NSF/NCSES higher-education surveys into reproducible analytical panels, using Reconstructive Harmonization: each era is reconstructed on its own terms, methodological discontinuities are decomposed into named, quantified components (real growth, definitional change, population expansion, bounded residual), and both are published with documentation a cold reader can use without misreading the discontinuity. Version 4.0 contains three datasets joined into one integrated object. (a) HERD — NSF Higher Education Research and Development survey data (FY 1972–2024) across the 2010 instrument redesign: a 50-year field-level R&D expenditure panel (FY 1975–2024), a Q15/Q16 research-personnel panel (FY 2022–2024), and a Q4/Q5 attribute sibling; this is the expenditure-OUT face (R&D spent, by institution / field / source class). (b) Federal S&E Support — a 53-year (FY 1971–FY 2023) institution-level panel of federal science-and-engineering obligations to higher-education institutions, drawn from the NSF Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions and carrying a native IPEDS UnitID; this is the funding-IN face (federal S&E dollars committed to individual higher-education institutions). (c) GSS — NSF Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (FY 1972–2024), carrying a native IPEDS UnitID across all 53 years: three long-format panels — graduate-student federal support by mechanism and federal agency, enrollment by degree level / gender / race, and postdoctoral plus non-faculty-researcher counts; this is the human-capital face (the federally-supported graduate students and postdocs that research funding trains). The value of the database is the integrated whole: HERD (expenditure-OUT), Federal S&E Support (funding-IN), and GSS (human-capital) are linked on the institution-year hub via the cross-survey institution-identity spine (and, for GSS, the native IPEDS UnitID it carries), so funding committed to an institution can be read against the R&D it spent and the researchers it trained — the funding → people → productivity picture, joined on the same federal agencies (NIH, NSF, DOD, DOE, USDA, NASA). The funding-IN ↔ expenditure-OUT join carries documented misalignments (federal-obligation fiscal-year basis vs. institution reporting-year basis, and institutional-grain differences); each survey also carries its own instrument discontinuities (the 2010 HERD redesign; the 2017 GSS redesign and the 1984–87 / 2014 GSS frame shifts), decomposed in the methods notes. Each dataset is validated against published NSF/NCSES ground truth; GSS reproduces published federal graduate-support counts for all 49 years (FY1975–2023) with zero mismatches and reconciles its 2023 cross-sections cell-for-cell. GSS field names are provisional in v4.0: the dedicated NCSES field-code reference was unavailable at release, so gss_code → field was reconstructed by count-matching each code's 2023 enrollment to published NSF totals — exact and unique for the 91 of 131 codes active in 2023; field_coarse is the Science / Engineering / Health super-broad only, and the ~40 historical-only codes are left NULL (no invented mappings) pending the reference, to be confirmed in a later patch. Version 4.0.1 corrects a defect in the HERD financial panel (herd_panel.parquet) present in v1.0.0-v4.0.0: 43,306 exact duplicate rows in FY2010-2023, caused by a year-range-blind crosswalk join that doubled seven era-B labels (aerospace, electrical engineering, and the five Geosciences rows). Geosciences field totals were double-counted in FY2010-2023 (e.g., FY2023 $8.07B vs the corrected $4.04B), and electrical/aerospace engineering sub-field totals were inflated; Engineering-all, Computer and information sciences, institution-level totals, FY2024, and the attribute, personnel, Federal S&E Support and GSS panels are unaffected. Users of v4.0.0 or earlier should re-pull herd_panel.parquet.

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.

M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...

Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al. · 302 citations · ⚡60

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 6, 2026

What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us

Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity.  The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.