chengyewang/TexOCR-eval huggingface dataset:
56.5 lm W$^{-1}$ and 26.3\%, respectively, with CRI of 86. Even at 10000 and 15000 cd m$^{-2}$, high PEs (45.8 and 38.5 lm W$^{-1}$) and EQEs (24.3 and 22.1\%) are maintained. Lighting sources are generally characterized by their total emitted light, which is a factor of 1.7--2.3 times more than the forward viewing efficiencies.\cite{1a} Therefore, the present device should have total PE and EQE values approaching 100 lm W$^{-1}$ and 50\%, respectively, at 5000 cd m$^{-2}$, which are also the highest levels reported for WOLEDs with extra out-coupling and/or multi-layer tandem structures,\cite{14} as well as comparable to the most efficient lighting technologies.\cite{15}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Summary of EL performance for Devices 1, 2, 3 and 4.}
\label{tab:table_1}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
Device & $V^{a}$ [V] & $V^{b}$ [V] & $\eta_{p}^{b}$ [lm W$^{-1}$] & $\eta_{ext}^{b}$ [\%] & CIE$_{x,y}^{b}$ \\
Device 1 & 2.5 & 3.8, 4.9, 5.6 & 74.5, 56.5, 45.8 & 27.3, 26.3, 24.3 & (0.43, 0.46), (0.42, 0.45), (0.41, 0.45) \\
Device 2 & 2.4 & 4.0, 5.2, 6.1 & 32.4, 21.2, 16.0 & 15.5, 13.1, 11.5 & (0.24, 0.48), (0.23, 0.42), (0.22, 0.36) \\
Device 3 & 2.6 & 4.7, 6.1, 6.9 & 42.8, 28.6, 22.6 & 18.4, 16.1, 14.2 & (0.21, 0.32), (0.20, 0.29), (0.19, 0.27) \\
Device 4 & 2.3 & 3.7, 4.7, 5.4 & 67.7, 53.2, 43.6 & 23.5, 24.0, 22.8 & (0.53, 0.46), (0.51, 0.46), (0.51, 0.45) \\
\end{tabular}

$^{a}$ Applied voltage required to reach a luminance of 1 cd m$^{-2}$. \\
$^{b}$ Values at 1000, 5000 and 10000 cd m$^{-2}$, respectively.
\end{table}

To elucidate the origin of the high performance of the Device 1, three reference devices (Devices 2, 3 and 4) with the same configuration as Device 1 were fabricated by using double neat films of FPPCA (20 nm)/Bepp$_2$ (10 nm) and a single doping film of Bepp$_2$:FPPCA (D) (1.5 wt\%, 30 nm) and FPPCA (H):BZQPG (0.8 wt\%, 30 nm) as the EML, respectively (see Figure S2 in ESI file). The efficiency-luminance (PE/EQE-L) characteristics of Devices 2, 3 and 4 and their EL spectra at different luminances (1000, 2500 and 5000 cd m$^{-2}$) are shown in Figures 3c and 4. The two emission peaks in Device 2 are assigned to: (i) direct exciton generation on the Bepp$_2$ and FPPCA molecules in the respective EML and (ii) singlet/triplet excited state energy in the blue EML transferring to the green EML; these are similar to those of Device 1 (Figure 3b) where both low-content dopants have almost no effect on the inherent properties of the host of Bepp$_2$ and FPPCA. Devices 3 and 4 comprise EMLs with
\section{Staff Information}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
 & Campus Count/Average & Campus Percent & District & State \\
\hline
Total Staff & 72.0 & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 100.0\% \\
Professional Staff: & 60.7 & 84.3\% & 64.7\% & 64.0\% \\
Teachers & 53.0 & 73.6\% & 50.4\% & 50.0\% \\
Professional Support & 5.7 & 8.0\% & 11.6\% & 10.0\% \\
Campus Administration (School Leadership) & 2.0 & 2.8\% & 2.4\% & 2.9\% \\
Educational Aides & 11.3 & 15.7\% & 8.0\% & 9.6\% \\
Total Minority Staff & 24.3 & 33.7\% & 49.1\% & 49.1\% \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Teachers by Ethnicity and Sex:} \\
African American & 1.0 & 1.9\% & 3.4\% & 10.2\% \\
Hispanic & 17.1 & 32.2\% & 33.2\% & 26.6\% \\
White & 33.9 & 64.0\% & 61.1\% & 59.8\% \\
American Indian & 0.0 & 0.0\% & 0.2\% & 0.4\% \\
Asian & 0.0 & 0.0\% & 1.2\% & 1.5\% \\
Pacific Islander & 0.0 & 0.0\% & 0.1\% & 0.4\% \\
Two or More Races & 1.0 & 1.9\% & 0.8\% & 1.1\% \\
Males & 5.0 & 9.4\% & 22.8\% & 23.7\% \\
Females & 48.0 & 90.6\% & 77.2\% & 76.3\% \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Teachers by Highest Degree Held:} \\
No Degree & 0.0 & 0.0\% & 0.1\% & 1.2\% \\
Bachelors & 37.4 & 70.6\% & 64.9\% & 74.5\% \\
Masters & 14.6 & 27.5\% & 34.0\% & 23.6\% \\
Doctorate & 1.0 & 1.9\% & 0.9\% & 0.6\% \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Teachers by Years of Experience:} \\
Beginning Teachers & 2.0 & 3.8\% & 4.1\% & 7.8\% \\
1-5 Years Experience & 10.0 & 18.9\% & 23.2\% & 28.0\% \\
6-10 Years Experience & 12.6 & 23.7\% & 22.7\% & 20.9\% \\
11-20 Years Experience & 19.0 & 35.9\% & 33.6\% & 27.8\% \\
Over 20 Years Experience & 9.4 & 17.8\% & 16.4\% & 15.5\% \\
\hline
Number of Students per Teacher & 16.0 & n/a & 15.6 & 15.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Staff Information}
\label{table_1}
\end{table}
\section{Bilaga}

\subsection{Musikalprojekten}

I föreliggande studie används \textit{musikalproduktion} som en övergripande benämning på projekten för att tydliggöra studiens fokus på musikal­arbetsprocessen och inte projektarbete som företeelse. Musikalen spänner över olika former som kabaré och revy men inbegriper dock en stilbestämning som liknar den moderna pop- och rockmusikalen. Den kan beskrivas som ett allkonstverk där de agerande är både skådespelare, dansare och sångare (Nordström, 2002).

Nedan följer en schematisk uppställning över de fem musikalprojekten (Figur~\ref{fig:figure_1}). Figuren utgör ett komplement till beskrivningen i löpande text som presenteras nedan. Uppställningen baseras på intervjupersonernas information och är tänkt att användas som en guide till läsaren för att kunna relatera utsagorna till respektive sammanhang. Skolorna benämns A, B, C, D och E.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Musikalprojekten -- en översikt}
\label{table_1}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
Skola & A (Anne, Alma) & B (Bonnie) & C (Carl) & D (Dan) & E (Emma) \\
\hline
Åk & Klass 5 och 7 & Klass 8 & Klass 9 & Klass 9 & Klass 5 \\
Grundskola & Musikklass & Vanliga klasser & Musikklass & Vanliga klasser & Kulturprofil \\
Antal involverade elever & 25--30 elever i varje klass arbetar med två olika musikaler samtidigt & Samtliga parallellklasser 100--150 elever årskurs 8 med projekt, medan ca 50 elever arbetar med musikalen & Ca 25 elever & Samtliga parallellklasser ca 90 elever & Samtliga parallellklasser ca 75 elever \\
Benämningar & Musikal (opera) & Musikal (kabaré) & Musikal & Musikal & Musikal (musik-teater) \\
Lärarsamverkan & Musiklärare, klasslärare/språklärare, textilslöjdlärare, bildlärare & Två musiklärare, klasslärare fritidsledare, textillärare & Två musiklärare, matematik/slöjd, engelska/tyska, fysik/biologi/kemi samt svenska/so-lärare & Svensklärare, musik/engelska, musik/matematik, slöjd/bildlärare klassföreståndarna i respektive klass & Musiklärare, klasslärare \\
Samverkan med proffs/institutioner utanför skolan & Stadsteater/ljud och ljus, Fortbildningsprojekt & Kulturskola, studieförbund, Kommunen, Dansare, regissör & Ljud och ljus, Kommunen, Regissör & Ingen redovisad samverkan & Ljud och ljus \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations ($\mu$g/liter) in major southern California municipal wastewaters, 1977--78.}
\label{table_2}
\begin{tabular}{llllllllll}
Date & Flow ($10^{11}$ liters/yr) & p-DCB & o-DCB & 1,2,4-TCB** & HCB & Total CB & PCB 1242 & PCB 1254 & Total DDT \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{Los Angeles City 5-Mile} \\
18--24 Jul 77 & 4.41 & 3.4 & 1.9 & 0.061 & 0.007 & 5.3 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.025 \\
16--22 Dec 77 &  & 5.5 & 4.1 & 0.92 & -- & 11 & 0.054 & 0.048 & 0.017 \\
14--20 Aug 78 & 4.71 & 4.6 & 2.2 & 0.71 & 0.009 & 7.4 & 0.037 & 0.086 & 0.020 \\
12--18 Dec 78 &  & 3.3 & 3.3 & 1.5 & 0.003 & 8.1 & 0.024 & 0.077 & 0.018 \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{Los Angeles City 7-Mile} \\
18--24 Jul 77 & 0.064 & 45 & 26 & 2.9 & 0.95 & 76 & 16 & 10 & 2.0 \\
16--22 Dec 77 &  & 77 & 15 & 12 & -- & 100 & 2.8 & 3.5 & 0.39 \\
14--20 Aug 78 & 0.064 & 0.75 & 10 & 18 & 0.36 & 29 & 8.8 & 9.1 & 1.1 \\
12--18 Dec 78 &  & 18 & 50 & 23 & 0.30 & 92 & 10 & 9.8 & 1.2 \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{Los Angeles County} \\
22--28 Jul 77 & 4.63 & 5.3 & 6.8 & 0.15 & 0.49 & 13 & 0.69 & 0.22 & 1.2 \\
15--21 Dec 77 &  & 5.4 & 8.6 & 2.7 & 0.14 & 17 & 0.33 & 0.12 & 0.90 \\
11--17 Aug 78 & 4.77 & 6.0 & 9.9 & 2.6 & 0.056 & 19 & 0.27 & 0.14 & 1.4 \\
8--14 Dec 78 &  & 3.9 & 7.6 & 3.3 & 0.049 & 15 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.58 \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{Orange County} \\
22--30 Jul 77 & 2.47 & 1.6 & 1.6 & 0.016 & 0.10 & 3.3 & 4.8 & 0.64 & 0.019 \\
16--22 Dec 77 &  & 4.3 & 3.4 & 0.24 & -- & 7.9 & 2.3 & 0.28 & 0.027 \\
5--14 Oct 78 & 2.53 & 2.3 & 1.5 & 0.30 & 0.032 & 4.2 & 0.75 & 0.34 & 0.076 \\
7--13 Dec 78 &  & 2.3 & 3.7 & 0.34 & 0.025 & 6.3 & 0.03 & 0.23 & 0.030 \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{San Diego City} \\
25--31 Jul 77 & 1.60 & 3.1 & 2.5 & 0.024 & 0.069 & 5.6 & 0.39 & 0.24 & 0.16 \\
15--21 Dec 77 &  & 5.0 & 4.3 & 0.43 & -- & 9.7 & 0.18 & 0.20 & 0.099 \\
21--28 Aug 78 & 1.76 & 4.7 & 3.5 & 0.48 & 0.062 & 8.7 & 0.18 & 0.21 & 0.54 \\
5--12 Dec 78 &  & 7.2 & 7.1 & 0.54 & 0.007 & 15 & 0.14 & 0.12 & 0.051 \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{Oxnard City} \\
18--22 Jul 77 & 0.15 & 4.5 & 2.2 & 0.023 & 0.010 & 6.7 & 0.021 & 0.040 & 0.082 \\
13--17 Dec 77 &  & 8.3 & 4.4 & 0.46 & -- & 13 & -- & 0.020 & 0.016 \\
14--18 Aug 78 & 0.20 & 5.4 & 3.0 & 0.26 & 0.020 & 8.7 & -- & 0.067 & 0.049 \\
11--15 Dec 78 &  & 7.4 & 8.4 & 0.62 & 0.007 & 16 & -- & 0.064 & 0.14 \\
\end{tabular}

\vspace{0.3cm}
* Each seasonal value based on two replicate samples of 1-week composites.

** 1,3,5-TCB not analyzed after 1976.
\end{table}
\section{Social Comparison Scale}

Please circle a number at a point which best describes the way in which you see yourself in comparison to others.

For example:

Short \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} Tall

If you put a mark at 3 this means you see yourself as shorter than others; if you put a mark at 5 (middle) about average; and a mark at 7 somewhat taller.

If you understand the above instructions, please proceed. Circle one number on each line according to how you see yourself in relationship to others.

In relationship to others I feel:

Inferior \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} Superior

Incompetent \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} More competent

Unlikeable \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} More likeable

Left out \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} Accepted

Different \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} Same

Untalented \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} More talented

Weaker \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} Stronger

Unconfident \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} More confident

Undesirable \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} More desirable

Unattractive \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} More attractive

An outsider \hspace{1em} 1\;2\;3\;4\;5\;6\;7\;8\;9\;10 \hspace{1em} An insider
\section{(3) Properties of seawater and particulate \& dissolved matter from discrete water samples}

In addition to sensors mounted on the Rosette Vertical Sampling System, seawater was collected using Niskin bottles (6 x 8-L Niskins and 4 x 12-L Niskins) in order to further characterise environmental conditions in the ecosystem under study. Measurements include pigment concentrations from HPLC analysis (10 depths per vertical profile; 25 pigments per depth), the carbonate system (Surface and 400m; pHT, CO2, pCO2, fCO2, HCO3, CO3, Total alkalinity, Total carbon, OmegaAragonite, OmegaCalcite, and quality flag), nutrients (10 depths per vertical profile; NO2, PO4, NO2/NO3, SI, quality Flags), DOC, CDOM, and dissolved oxygen isotopes. More than 200 vertical profiles of these properties were made across the world ocean. DOC, CDOM and dissolved oxygen isotopes are available only for the Arctic Ocean and Arctic Seas (2013 campaigns). Tara Oceans Data corresponding to these parameters are published in open access at PANGAEA. At PANGAEA, vertical profiles are packaged into 201 citable data publications, i.e. one per sampling station. At SeaDataNet, each vertical profile is accessed separately and referenced by a distinct Common Data Index (CDI) record.

Link to the corresponding data sets published at PANGAEA

Link to a map of the corresponding data sets published at PANGAEA

Link to download all corresponding data compiled in a single file (NetCDF format) archived at PANGAEA (http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.836319)

Table 3. List of parameters disseminated to the SeaDataNet network, regarding properties of seawater and dissolved matter from discrete water samples.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
PARAMETER NAME & SDN:P02 code & SDN:P06 code & SDN:P011 code \\
\hline
Pressure & AHGT & UPDB & PRESPS02 \\
Conductivity & CNDC & UECA & CNDCZZ01 \\
Temperature & TEMP & UPAA & TEMPZZXX \\
Salinity & PSAL &  & PSALZZXX \\
Silicate & SLCA & UPOX & SLCAZZXX \\
Nitrate and Nitrite & NTRZ & UPOX & NTRZZZXX \\
Nitrite & NTRI & UPOX & NTRIZZXX \\
Phosphate & PHOS & UPOX & PHOSZZXX \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table_3}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
Time & Referee Number & Actions \\
12:40 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
13:06 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
14:34 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
15:03 & R1 & Foul Team B \\
15:32 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
16:03 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
17:11 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
17:27 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
17:40 & R1 & 7M Foul Team A \\
18:09 & R2 & 7M Foul Team B \\
18:38 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
21:03 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
21:37 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
22:30 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
23:23 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
24:49 & R1 & Steps Team B \\
24:56 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
26:17 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
26:45 & R2 & Offensive Foul Team A \\
27:04 & R1 & Dribbling Team B \\
28:51 & R1 & Dribbling Team B \\
29:15 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
30:21 & R1 & Foul Team B \\
30:34 & R1 & Foul Team B \\
30:47 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
31:13 & R1 & 7M Foul Team A \\
31:49 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
32:23 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
32:36 & R1 & Not to recognisable Team A \\
33:33 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
33:54 & R2 & Steps Team B \\
34:04 & R2 & 7M Foul Team B \\
34:44 & R2 & Entering Goal Area Team B \\
35:19 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
36:48 & R1 & Entering Goal Area Team A \\
39:16 & R2 & 7M Foul Team A \\
40:51 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
41:50 & R1 & Offensive Foul Team A \\
42:23 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
42:46 & R1 & Foul Team B \\
43:15 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
43:24 & R2 & Offensive Foul Team B \\
43:46 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
44:28 & R1 & 7M Foul Team A \\
45:06 & R2 & 7M Foul Team B \\
45:46 & R1 & 7M Foul Team A \\
46:18 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
47:04 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
48:27 & R1 & Foul Team B \\
48:33 & R2 & Foul Team B \\
52:13 & R2 & Foul Team A \\
52:34 & R1 & Foul Team A \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrlrr}
\hline
Receipts & Year Ended March 31, 2017 (Rs.) & Year Ended March 31, 2016 (Rs.) & Payments & Year Ended March 31, 2017 (Rs.) & Year Ended March 31, 2016 (Rs.) \\
\hline
Opening Balance & & & Utilization towards Projects & & \\
Cash in Hand & - & - & Purchase of Fixed Assets & 11,113,573 & 3,708,282 \\
Current Account & 244,875 & 28,415 & Faculty Expenses & 59,408,060 & 38,144,339 \\
Term Deposits & 29,118,331 & - & School Operating Expenses & 24,677,855 & 17,489,754 \\
Interest received on Term Deposit & 828,852 & 1,700,519 & Advances Paid & 1,059,849 & 1,206,260 \\
Contributions Received & 139,662,978 & 112,798,826 & Payment towards Outstanding Liabilities & 1,209,757 & 1,511,746 \\
 & & &  & 97,469,094 & 62,060,381 \\
 & & & Utilization towards Administration & & \\
 & & & Personnel Expenses & 8,169,666 & 7,166,195 \\
 & & & Administration and Other Expenses & 6,050,596 & 14,068,484 \\
 & & & Payment towards Outstanding Liabilities & 101,822 & 1,106,194 \\
 & & & Advances Paid & - & 763,300 \\
 & & &  & 14,322,084 & 23,104,173 \\
 & & & Closing Balance & & \\
 & & & Cash in Hand & - & - \\
 & & & Current Account & 5,237,674 & 244,875 \\
 & & & Term Deposits & 52,826,184 & 29,118,331 \\
Total & 169,855,036 & 114,527,760 & Total & 169,855,036 & 114,527,760 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table_1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figure_2.pdf}
\caption{Percentage of response choices for each causal structure as a function of age group. Correct responses to the causal chain are denoted as ABC.}
\label{figure_2}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Percentage of times that participants chose each intervention collapsed across common cause and causal chain trials.}
\label{table_1}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
 & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Informative} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Uninformative} \\
 & B+ & A--B+ & C+ & A--C+ & A+C-- & A+B-- & A+ & B--C+ & B+C-- \\
5--6 years & 17.9 & 9.5 & 12.9 & 5.1 & 9.6 & 8.3 & 23.3 & 8.2 & 5.4 \\
6--7 years & 17.5 & 9.2 & 14.2 & 8.2 & 8.2 & 9.0 & 21.8 & 6.4 & 5.6 \\
7--8 years & 10.8 & 11.3 & 9.4 & 11.1 & 14.8 & 13.5 & 14.2 & 6.9 & 8.0 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Regression analyses from Experiment 1.}
\label{table_2}
\begin{tabular}{llcccccc}
Dependent & Parameter & Estimate & SE & Odds ratio & z & p($>|z|$) \\
$P_{correct}$(chain) & Intercept & -4.77 & 1.80 &  & -2.65 & .008** \\
 & \% Informative & 7.37 & 2.70 & 1587 & 2.73 & .006** \\
$P_{correct}$(common cause) & Intercept & 1.87 & 1.48 &  & 1.27 & .21 \\
 & \% Informative & -1.32 & 2.15 & 0.267 & -0.62 & .54 \\
$P_{correct}$(chain) & Intercept & -0.81 & 0.75 &  & -1.09 & .278 \\
 & Efficiency & 1.22 & 0.92 & 3.39 & 1.32 & .186 \\
$P_{correct}$(common cause) & Intercept & 3.39 & 0.99 &  & 3.39 & .0007*** \\
 & Efficiency & -3.31 & 1.27 & 0.037 & -2.62 & .009** \\
$P_{correct}$(chain) & Intercept & -4.43 & 1.74 &  & 2.53 & .012* \\
 & Quality & 7.98 & 3.06 & 2921 & 2.61 & .009** \\
$P_{correct}$(common cause) & Intercept & 1.46 & 1.40 &  & 1.04 & .30 \\
 & Quality & -0.78 & 2.24 & 0.46 & -0.35 & .73 \\
\end{tabular}

Note: The table shows three separate analyses of predictors of performance on the causal chain and common cause trials: percentage of informative interventions, efficiency, and intervention quality.

* $p < .05$.

** $p < .01$.

*** $p < .001$.
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Food Security Index}
\label{table_23}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
Value and Range & $f$ & Percent & Cumulative Percent \\
\hline
Never True: 1.0--1.9 & 31 & 37.3 & 37.3 \\
Sometimes True: 2.0--2.9 & 33 & 39.7 & 71.5 \\
Often True: 3.0--3.9 & 17 & 20.5 & 95.2 \\
Always True: 4.0 & 2 & 2.4 & 100.0 \\
Total & 83 & 100.0 &  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{One-Way (Analysis of Variance) ANOVA}
To test research hypotheses H$_1$ through H$_4$ in this study, researcher utilized the one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) multivariate analysis. ANOVA is designed to be used for categorical independent variables (factors) but can make use of continuous independent variables if they were collapsed into discrete categories.

Listed below were the results from analyzing the one-way ANOVA for each hypothesis in this study. In the first two hypotheses, the independent variable was life satisfaction and the dependent variables were age and levels of education. In the third and fourth hypotheses the independent variable was food security and the dependent variables were age and levels of education.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Base case input per year}
\label{table_1}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
Parameters & Mean & SE & Units & Distribution & Source \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Survival probabilities} \\
DFS to DFS & 0.763 & 0.030 &  & Beta & \cite{18} \\
DFS to DM & 0.196 & 0.030 & 13/73 & Beta & \cite{18} \\
DFS to Death & 0.041 & 0.030 & 3/73 & Beta & \cite{18} \\
DM to DM & 0.804 & 0.030 &  & Beta & \cite{18} \\
DM to Death & 0.196 & 0.030 & 13/73 & Beta & \cite{18} \\
Death & 1.000 &  &  &  &  \\
Mort. related pulmonary infection UC & 0.015 & 0.001 & 4.1/24.47/11 & Beta & \cite{21} \\
Mort. related pulmonary infection HME & 0.005 & 0.001 & 3.7/74.48/11 & Beta & \cite{21} \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Probabilities} \\
Pulmonary infection UC & 0.285 & 0.120 & 6.79/24.47 & Beta & \cite{21} \\
Pulmonary infection HME & 0.066 & 0.105 & 4.92/74.48 & Beta & \cite{21} \\
Use of benzodiazepines UC & 0.275 & 0.030 & 11/40 & Beta & \cite{17} \\
Use of benzodiazepines HME & 0.110 & 0.030 & 2/18 & Beta & \cite{17} \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Utilities} \\
HME use & 0.952 & 0.015 &  & Beta & \cite{25} \\
Usual care (UC) & 0.830 & 0.015 &  & Beta & \cite{25} \\
Palliative period & 0.500 & 0.015 &  & Beta & Assumption \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

\vspace{0.5cm}

\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
 & Mean (Zloty) & (Euros) & SE & Lower/upper (\%) & Distribution & Source \\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{l}{Costs in PLN} \\
Pulmonary infection$^{a}$ & 1,627 & (2564) & 207.55 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Including: 4 days admission & $4 \times 325$ & $(4 \times 575)$ & 41.45 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Antibiotics$^{b}$ & 49 & (85) & 6.21 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Outpatient clinic & 229 & (129) & 29.15 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Plain X-ray & 50 & (50) & 6.38 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Sleep medication$^{c}$ & 128 & (672) & 16.29 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
HME package$^{d}$ & 13,966 & (5,575) & 1,781 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Atos Med. \\
Stoma cover$^{e}$ & 228 & (365) & 29.10 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Suction system$^{f}$ & 42 & (50) & 5.34 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Ultrasonic nebulizer-hospital & 832 & (2915) & 106.14 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
Saline use at home$^{g}$ & 785 & (2,035) & 100.13 & $\pm$25 & Gamma & Hosp \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

\vspace{0.3cm}

Hosp: personal communication; data from several hospitals in different regions in Poland (see Supplementary Appendix), using questionnaires; Atos Medical: available at: http://www.atosmedical.com

SE standard error, HME heat and moisture exchanger, UC usual care, Mort. mortality, DFS disease-free survival, DM distant metastasis

$^{a}$ Including: 4 days of hospital admission, antibiotics, plain X-ray, outpatient clinic

$^{b}$ Antibiotics: Metronidazil; Cefalosporyn; Amoxiclavican; Zinnat 5--14 days

$^{c}$ Estazolan (noctal), estimation for daily consumption 0.20--0.50 PLN

$^{d}$ Including one HME cassette per day, one adhesive per 1--1.5 day, and 1 laryngectomy tube or stoma buttons per year

$^{e}$ Estimation 0.25--1 PLN/day

$^{f}$ Container 7 PLN; Tubing 2.50 PLN/2 days; Suction tip 0.32 PLN approx. 6/day

$^{g}$ Sodium chloride ampules 9 mg/ml per 15 pieces (assumption 5 pieces per day)