<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>

You are an expert at identifying data availability statements in scientific text. A data availability statement describes where research data can be found or how it can be accessed.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>

Determine if the following text contains a data availability statement. Answer with 'yes' or 'no'.

Text: In a series of irradiations at Karlsruhe Intitute of Technology (KIT), neutron capture reactions for a 25-keV Maxwell-Boltzmann neutron energy distribution were studied, mainly for reactions that are relevant for s-process nucleosynthesis. AMS **data** obtained from such identical activations are used here, but they were converted into 30-keV MACS values for a direct comparison with TOF data. TOF measurement techniques have been well-established for several decades. In TOF, usually the prompt signature from the de-excitation of the reaction product is measured and used to generate a cross-section value. This approach involves different and also more sophisticated **data** processing procedures compared to AMS. The TOF **data** plotted here are based on measurements at ORELA ( 35 Cl, 40 Ca and 58 Ni) and n TOF/CERN ( 54 Fe and 58 Ni). In the activation reaction studies for AMS, the irradiation setup was designed such that the integrated neutron energy distribution resembled closely a Maxwellian distribution. Thus the measured cross section approximated an energy-averaged value. In TOF the energy-dependent cross sections are folded with the respective neutron flux energy-distribution for the MACS. There are no correlations between these two techniques. We find a systematic deviation between the two methods as seen in Table X. AMS **data** are systematically lower by about 11% compared to TOF **data** for these four reactions. In general, AMS measurements are normalized to reference materials which are independent from each other, and thus there is no correlation in AMS between different reactions. AMS and TOF **data** were both acquired at two different laboratories (Univ. of Vienna and TU Munich, and ORELA and n TOF, respectively). Currently, it is not known what the cause for this systematic deviation could be. The uncertainties of these ratios are generally lower than the observed deviation, leading to a potential estimate of an USU value. For instance, a numerical value for an USU contribution could be assumed to be the minimum deviation that make all measured **data** statistically consistent. If so, this could be estimated to be 5-7%.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>

no<|eot_id|>