Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
2,373
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
2,373 results for “Platform”
Characterising underwater noise and changes in harbour porpoise behaviour during the decommissioning of an oil and gas platform
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data to support manuscript: A Comparison of Two ROV Survey Methods Used to Estimate Fish Assemblages and Densities Around a California Oil Platform
This fish dataset was collected at platform Harmony, between Aug 25 and Aug 26, 2018. The ROV fish survey was done with two methods: industry (mimicking an inspection survey conducted for platform structural inspections) and biological method. Due to differences between the two methods in the positioning of the ROV vis a vis the jacket crossbeams, fish densities and diversities were different between the two methods at the platform bottom. This dataset provides fish counts and the relevant survey parameters (transect length and depth).
SBC LTER: Watersipora recruitment on offshore oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel, 2014-2015
These data describe the results of experiments and sampling designed to evaluate the effects of disturbance on the establishment of the non-native bryozoan Watersipora subatra on offshore oil and gas platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel, CA, USA.
Simulation Data for Project on Incentivizing Participation in Peer-to-Peer Ride-Sharing Platform
<p>Unlike commercial ridesharing, non-commercial peer-to-peer (P2P) ridesharing has been subject to limited research---although it can promote viable solutions in non-urban communities. This paper focuses on the core problem in P2P ridesharing: the matching of riders and drivers. We elevate users' preferences as a first-order concern and introduce novel notions of fairness and stability in P2P ridesharing. We propose algorithms for efficient matching while considering user-centric factors including users' preferred departure time, fairness, and stability.</p> <p>The dataset includes our simulation settings and results. Results suggest that individually rational, fair and stable solutions can be obtained in reasonable computational times, and can improve baseline outcomes based on system-wide efficiency exclusively. </p>
Effect of rough surface platforms on the mucosal attachment and the marginal bone loss of implants: A dog study.
<p>The preservation of peri-implant tissues is an important factor for implant success. This study aimed to assess the influence of the surface features of a butt-joint platform on soft-tissue attachment and bone resorption after immediate or delayed implant placement</p>
Data for Precursor intensity-based label-free quantification software tools for Galaxy Platform.
<p><strong>Precursor intensity-based label-free quantification software tools for proteomic and multi-omic analysis within the Galaxy Platform.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>ABRF:</strong> Data was generated through the collaborative work of the ABRF Proteomics Research Group (<a href="https://abrf.org/research-group/proteomics-research-group-prg">https://abrf.org/research-group/proteomics-research-group-prg</a>). See Reference for details: Van Riper, S. et al. ‘<a href="http://cbs.umn.edu/sites/cbs.umn.edu/files/public/downloads/2016_ABRF_PRG_Poster_for_ASMS_20160501.pdf">An ABRF-PRG study: Identification of low abundance proteins in a highly complex protein sample</a>’ at the 64th Annual Conference of American Society of Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics" at San Antonio, TX."</p> <p><strong>UPS:</strong> <strong>MaxLFQ Cox J, Hein MY, Luber CA, Paron I, Nagaraj N, Mann M.<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24942700/"> Accurate proteome-wide label-free quantification by delayed normalization and maximal peptide ratio extraction, termed MaxLFQ.</a> Mol Cell Proteomics. 2014 Sep;13(9):2513-26. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M113.031591. Epub 2014 Jun 17. PubMed PMID: 24942700; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4159666;</strong></p> <p><strong>PRIDE #5412; ProteomeXchange repository PXD000279: </strong>ftp://ftp.pride.ebi.ac.uk/pride/data/archive/2014/09/PXD000279</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1988
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1988</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1990
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1990</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1986
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1986</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1991
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1991</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1994
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1994</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1995
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1995</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2000
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2000</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1998
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1998</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2007
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2007</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2005
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2005</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2004
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2004</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2014
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2014</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2015
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2015</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
ARTICONF Platform Focus Group -1 Dataset
<p>This is ARTICONF Platform focus group discussion across members from multiple domains in academia and industries. The video was shot using Zoom tool amid the pandemic situation. The folder also contains text based transcripts.</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.