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.
11,198
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
11,198 results for “organ”
Spatiotemporal prediction of soil organic carbon density (SOCD) for pan-Europe (2000-2022) in 3D+T
<h2><strong>Sub-dataset: WPCT mean, 2000–2004</strong></h2> <h2>Disclaimer</h2> <p>This is the first release of pan-EU predictions of soil health indicators (the Soil Health Data Cube). Use for testing purposes only. A publication describing methods used has been submitted to PeerJ and is in review. Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Commision. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. The data is provided "as is". AI4SoilHealth project consortium and its suppliers and licensors hereby disclaim all warranties of any kind, express or implied, including, without limitation, the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. Neither AI4SoilHealth project Consortium nor its suppliers and licensors, makes any warranty that the Website will be error free or that access thereto will be continuous or uninterrupted. You understand that you download from, or otherwise obtain content or services through, the Website at your own discretion and risk.</p> <h2>Description</h2> <p>This dataset covers pan-European areas, including Ukraine, the UK, and Turkey. This data cube could be used for applications such as soil property mapping and comprehensive soil health assessment across Europe. The dataset spans four depth ranges and multiple time periods, providing information for studies on soil organic carbon stock and dynamics.</p> <p>This dataset is part of the Spatiotemporal prediction of soil organic carbon density for Europe (2000-2022) in 3D+T dataset. Check the related identifiers section below to access other parts of the dataset.</p> <p>This data set includes:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Soil Organic Carbon Density (SOCD) (2000-2022, 4-year intervals):</strong><br> This data includes mean, p975, and p025 SOCD maps for four depth ranges (0-20cm, 20-50cm, 50-100cm, and 100-200cm) in kg/m<sup>3</sup> (scaled 10x). </li> <li><strong>Organic carbon content based on dry combustion weight percentage (WPCT) (2000-2022, 4-year intervals):</strong><br> This data includes mean, p975, and p025 WPCT maps for four depth ranges (0-20cm, 20-50cm, 50-100cm, and 100-200cm) in percentage. </li> </ul> <h3>Related identifiers</h3> <ul> <li><strong>SOCD mean:</strong><br> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13754343">2000-2004</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13771721">2004-2008</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13771841">2008-2012</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13771911">2012-2016</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13771967">2016-2020</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13772054">2020-2022</a> </li> <li><strong>SOCD p025:</strong><br> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13779539">2000-2004</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13774064">2004-2008</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13774089">2008-2012</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13774114">2012-2016</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13774167">2016-2020</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13774196">2020-2022</a> </li> <li><strong>SOCD p975:</strong><br> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13778472">2000-2004</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13773396">2004-2008</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13773765">2008-2012</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13773828">2012-2016</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13773953">2016-2020</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13774003">2020-2022</a> </li> <li><strong>WPCT mean:</strong><br> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785010">2000-2004</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785079">2004-2008</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785170">2008-2012</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785306">2012-2016</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785419">2016-2020</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785553">2020-2022</a> </li> <li><strong>WPCT p025:</strong><br> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786250">2000-2004</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786314">2004-2008</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786449">2008-2012</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786565">2012-2016</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786594">2016-2020</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786702">2020-2022</a> </li> <li><strong>WPCT p975:</strong><br> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785722">2000-2004</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785854">2004-2008</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13785917">2008-2012</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786029">2012-2016</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786119">2016-2020</a> <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/13786214">2020-2022</a> </li> </ul> <h3>Data Details</h3> <ul> <li><strong>Time period:</strong> 2000–2022, in 4-year intervals (last period covers 2020–2022).</li> <li><strong>Type of data:</strong> Spatiotemporal soil organic carbon data cube, with depth ranges and weighted percentage data for soil carbon assessments.</li> <li><strong>How the data was collected or derived:</strong> The data was derived using machine learning models.</li> <li><strong>Statistical methods used:</strong> Quantile Random Forest</li> <li><strong>Limitations or exclusions in the data:</strong> The dataset does not include data for Svalbard. </li> <li><strong>Coordinate reference system:</strong> EPSG:3035</li> <li><strong>Bounding box (Xmin, Ymin, Xmax, Ymax):</strong> (900,000, 899,000, 7,401,000, 5,501,000)</li> <li><strong>Spatial resolution:</strong> 30m</li> <li><strong>Image size:</strong> 216,700P x 153,400L</li> <li><strong>File format:</strong> Cloud Optimized Geotiff (COG) format.</li> </ul> <h3>Support</h3> <p>If you discover a bug, artifact, or inconsistency, or if you have a question please raise a GitHub issue: GitLab Issues (tbc)</p> <h3>Name convention</h3> <p>To ensure consistency and ease of use across and within the projects, we follow the standard Ai4SoilHealth and Open-Earth-Monitor file-naming convention. The convention works with 10 fields that describe important properties of the data. In this way users can search files, prepare data analysis etc, without needing to open files. The fields are:</p> <ol> <li><strong>generic variable name:</strong> oc = organic carbon</li> <li><strong>variable procedure combination:</strong> iso.10694.1995.mg.cm3 = ISO method 10694:1995, with values in mg/cm<sup>3</sup> for SOCD | iso.10694.1995.wpct = ISO method 10694:1995, with values in weighted percentage of organic carbon content.</li> <li><strong>Position in the probability distribution/variable type:</strong> m = mean | p975 = percentile 97.5 | p025 = percentile 2.5</li> <li><strong>Spatial support:</strong> 30m</li> <li><strong>Depth reference:</strong> b0cm..20cm = depth range from 0 to 20cm</li> <li><strong>Time reference begin time:</strong> 20000101 = 2000-01-01</li> <li><strong>Time reference end time:</strong> 20041231 = 2004-12-31</li> <li><strong>Bounding box:</strong> eu = pan-Europe</li> <li><strong>EPSG code:</strong> epsg.3035</li> <li><strong>Version code:</strong> v20240804 = version from 2024-08-04</li> </ol>
Data from: Microplastic and organic carbon storage in sediments of intertidal and subtidal seagrass meadows
<p>This datasets support the scientific article (submitted) " Microplastic and organic carbon storage in sediments of intertidal and subtidal seagrass meadows." It contains detailed data on sedimentary organic carbon content and the abundance of microplastics in both intertidal and subtidal seagrass meadows within the Ria Formosa lagoon (Southern Portugal). The datasets are accompanied by analysis code, available at GitHub repository, allowing for reproducibility and further exploration of the data.</p> <p>The data is composed by 4 datasets with the following variables:</p> <p><strong>data_cores.csv. </strong>Contains properties related to the sampling of the sediment cores.</p> <ul> <li>core_id [character] - unique core identification code used in the field.</li> <li>core_id_new [character] - unique core identification code used in the article.</li> <li>species [character] - species of the seagrass meadow.</li> <li>replicate [character] - replicate number of the core in each seagrass meadow.</li> <li>core_depth [numeric] - depth sampled with the core (in centimeters).</li> <li>sample_length [numeric] - length of the sampled core measured in the laboratory (in centimeters).</li> <li>compaction_factor [numeric] - fraction of the sample depth interval reduced due to compaction. It is calculated by dividing the core length by the core depth.</li> <li>compaction_perc [numeric] - core compaction in percentage (%). It is calculated as 100*(1 - compaction_factor).</li> </ul> <p><br><strong>data_samples.csv. </strong>Contains properties of the sediment samples.</p> <ul> <li>core_id [character] - unique core identification code used in the field.</li> <li>sample_id [character] - unique sample identification code (obtained by concatenating the core id and the minimum non-corrected depth of the sample).</li> <li>depth_middle [numeric] - middle depth of a sampling increment, calculating as the average of depth_min and depth_max (in centimeters).</li> <li>depth_min [numeric] - minimum depth of a sampling increment, corrected for compaction (in centimeters).</li> <li>depth_max [numeric] - maximum depth of a sampling increment, corrected for compaction (in centimeters).</li> <li>sample_volume [numeric] - volume of the sediment sample, corrected for compaction (in cubic centimeters).</li> <li>sample_dw [numeric] - dry mass of the sample (in grams of dry weight).</li> <li>percentage_organic_matter [numeric] - mass of organic matter relative to sample dry mass, obtained by loss-on-ignition (in percentage of dry weight).</li> <li>percentage_organic_carbon [numeric] - mass of organic carbon relative to sample dry mass, obtained by a local organic carbon to organic carbon ratio (as a percentage of dry weight).</li> <li>bag_id [character] - identification code for the aluminium envelope containing the sample.</li> <li>weight_sample_mp [numeric] - dry mass of the sample used for the microplastic extraction (in grams of dry weight).</li> <li>dry_bulk_density [numeric] - dry mass per unit volume of the sample. This is calculated as the sample_dw divided by the sample_dw (in grams of dry weight per cubic centimeter). </li> </ul> <p><br><strong>data_particles_visual.csv. </strong>Contains properties of the suspected microplastic particles found in the sediment samples and the negative controls, based on visual inspection.</p> <ul> <li>core_id [character] - unique core identification code used in the field.</li> <li>core_id_new [character] - unique core identification code used in the article.</li> <li>species [character] - species of the seagrass meadow.</li> <li>habitat_label [character] - text for labelling purposes regarding the habitat.</li> <li>type [factor] - whether the particle comes from a sediment sample ("sediment") or a control sample ("control"). </li> <li>cycle [character] - cycle in which samples were analysed.</li> <li>sample_id [character] - unique sample identification code (obtained by concatenating the core id and the minimum non-corrected depth of the sample).</li> <li>bag_id [character] - identification code for the aluminium envelope containing the sample.</li> <li>filter_id [character] - identification code of the filter used for the particle extraction.</li> <li>filter_area [numeric] - area of the filter that was screened for microplastics (in fraction of total).</li> <li>visual_id [character] - unique particle identification code based on visual identification.</li> <li>colour [factor] - particle colour category: black_grey, blue_green, brown_tan, opaque, orange_pink_red, transparent, white_cream, yellow.</li> <li>shape [factor] - particle shape category: film, foam, fragment, line, pellet.</li> <li>major [numeric] - longest dimension of the particle, analysed in ImageJ (in micrometers).</li> <li>minor [numeric] - Longest dimension perpendicular to major, analysed in ImageJ (in micrometers).</li> </ul> <p><br><strong>data_particles_ftir.csv. </strong>Contains properties of the suspected microplastic particles found in the sediment samples and the negative controls, based on the FTIR analysis.</p> <ul> <li>species [character] - species of the seagrass meadow.</li> <li>habitat_label [character] - text for labelling purposes regarding the habitat.</li> <li>core_id [character] - unique core identification code used in the field.</li> <li>core_id_new [character] - unique core identification code used in the article.</li> <li>filter_id [character] - identification code of the filter used for the particle extraction.</li> <li>filter_area [numeric] - area of the filter that was screened for microplastics (in fraction of total).</li> <li>cycle [character] - cycle in which samples were analysed.</li> <li>type [factor] - whether the particle comes from a sediment sample ("sediment") or a control sample ("control"). </li> <li>sample_id [character] - unique sample identification code (obtained by concatenating the core id and the minimum non-corrected depth of the sample).</li> <li>num_ftir [numeric] - numerical order in which particles were identified within a filter.</li> <li>colour [factor] - particle colour category: black_grey, blue_green, brown_tan, opaque, orange_pink_red, transparent, white_cream, yellow.</li> <li>shape [factor] - particle shape category: film, foam, fragment, line, pellet.</li> <li>ref_analysis [boolean] - whether the reflection analysis was preformed or not.</li> <li>atr_analysis [boolean] - whether the ATR analysis was preformed or not.</li> <li>ftir_match_ref [character] - name of the polymer with the highest match found using µFTIR for reflection analysis.</li> <li>match_ref [numeric] - percentage of match corresponding to highest match for reflection analysis.</li> <li>ftir_match_atr [character] - name of the polymer with the highest match found using µFTIR for ATR analysis.</li> <li>match_atr [numeric] - percentage of match corresponding to highest match for ATR analysis.</li> <li>plastic_ref [boolean] - whether the particle is classified as having a plastic composition or not, based on the reflection analysis.</li> <li>polymer_group_ref [factor] - polymer group based on the reflection analysis: Non-plastic, Nylon-polyamides, Poluacrylamides, Polyacrylates, Polyesters, Polyethylene, Polyglycols, Polyhaloolefins, Polymethylmethacrylate, Polypropylene, Polystyrene, Polyurethane, Polyvinylalcohol, Silicones, Others.</li> <li>plastic_atr [boolean] - whether the particle is classified as having a plastic composition or not, based on the ATR analysis.</li> <li>polymer_group_atr [factor] - polymer group based on the ATR analysis: Non-plastic, Nylon-polyamides, Poluacrylamides, Polyacrylates, Polyesters, Polyethylene, Polyglycols, Polyhaloolefins, Polymethylmethacrylate, Polypropylene, Polystyrene, Polyurethane, Polyvinylalcohol, Silicones, Others.</li> <li>ftir_match_final [character] - final decision on the polymer composition, including the option "unclear".</li> <li>plastic_final [factor] - whether the particle is classified as having a plastic composition or not, based on final decision "ftir_match_final", includes categories: yes, no, unclear.</li> <li>final_analysis [character] - the analysis performed and used for the final decision, includes categories: ref (reflection analysis), atr (ATR analysis), both-but-atr-more-conclusive, both-but-ref-more-conclusive, both-unclear.</li> <li>polymer_group_final [character] - polymer group based final decision: Non-plastic, Nylon-polyamides, Poluacrylamides, Polyacrylates, Polyesters, Polyethylene, Polyglycols, Polyhaloolefins, Polymethylmethacrylate, Polypropylene, Polystyrene, Polyurethane, Polyvinylalcohol, Silicones, Others.</li> </ul>
Data accessibility in the chemical sciences: an analysis of recent practice in organic chemistry journals
<div> <p>Data is the analysis of the data outputs of 240 randomly selected research papers from 12 top-ranked journals published in early 2023. We investigate author compliance with recommended (but not compulsory) data policies, whether there is evidence to suggest that authors apply FAIR data guidance in their data publishing, and if the existence of specific recommendations for publishing NMR data by some journals encourages compliance. Files in the data package have been provided in both human and machine-readable forms. The main dataset is available in the Excel file Data worksheet.XLSX, the contents of which can also be found in Main_dataset.CSV, Data_types.CSV, and Article_selection.CSV with explanations of the variable coding used in the studies in Variable_names.CSV, Codes.CSV, and FAIR_variable_coding.CSV. The R code used for the article selection can be found in Article_selection.R. Data about article types from the journals that contain original research data is in Article_types.CSV. Data collected for analysis in our sister paper[4] can be found in Extended_Adherence.CSV, Extended_Crystallography.CSV, Extended_DAS.CSV, Extended_File_Types.CSV, and Extended_Submission_Process.CSV. A full list of files in the data package and a short description for each is given in README.TXT.</p> </div>
OMAP-23: Organ Mapping Antibody Panel (OMAP) for Multiplexed Antibody-Based Imaging of vermiform appendix (FFPE) with MICS on MACSima
<p><strong>Description</strong></p> <p> OMAP-23 was designed for MICS (MACSima imaging cyclic staining) imaging of FFPE human vermiform appendix sample. Tissue fixation and antigen retrieval is described in (<a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2023/11/07/2023.10.27.564191.full.pdf">Spatial protein and RNA analysis on the same tissue section using MICS technology</a>). The MACSima technology is described in detail in the following publication (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05841-4">MACSima imaging cyclic staining (MICS) technology reveals combinatorial target pairs for CAR T cell treatment of solid tumors</a>). All, antibodies in this panel are recombinant antibodies with a mutated human IgG1 constant region, removing Fc receptor binding capacity of human IgG1, eliminating the need for additional blocking steps and reducing non-specific binding. The use of human IgG1 recombinant antibodies allows for the addition of uncoupled monoclonal antibodies from other species followed by a fluorescence labelled secondary reagent specific for the species of the monoclonal antibody. The multiplex system has been described already for OMAP-10 and OMAP-21. A new dye VioB515 is used for one reagents. The fluorescence is removed by cleavage. The panel contains 28 antibodies and the nuclear marker DAPI for image alignment and nuclear segmentation. This OMAP provides a spatial context for six anatomical structures and most cell types present in the vermiform appendix (link to ASCT+B table added). OMAP-23 follows OMAP-21, with fewer antibodies but adding antibodies for non-immune cells.</p> <p>All reagents are from Miltenyi Biotec and have been rigorously tested through an internal quality control system to have minimal variation between lots. For this reason, lot information is not included in this table. Analysis was performed by an accompanied software package MACSIQ View Analysis also described in the MACSima publication (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05841-4">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05841-4</a>). The MACSima system is continuously evolving, this is the third OMAP for the MACSima system. A representative dataset created using OMAP-23 can be found here 10.5281/zenodo.14008816 .The AVRs for the dataset can be found here (to be added).</p>
Outsourcing asylum reception Street-level organizations and the privatization of state action in Switzerland
<p>By approaching outsourcing through an ethnographic lens,we focus on the policies that enable public authorities to deal with the many uncertainties of refugee reception. We investigate how cantonal (subnational) governments in Switzerland remodel these uncertainties by implementing the policy of reception through private intermediaries, namely actors, instruments, and rationalities from the private sphere.</p> <p>Codebook along DDI standard in pdf and xml formats.</p>
Process-structure-property map for organic solar cells
<p>This archive contains:<br> - 1708 morphologies generated using Cahn-Hilliard equation for two parameters: blend ratio in range (0.5-0.63) and chi/interaction parameter (2.3-4.0). Blend ratio and chi are the processing conditions. Morphologies are given in two formats: plt files (srcdata folder) - raw data from simulations, and txt file (data folder) in the row-wise format for Graspi. For quick visualization morphologies are visualized and stored in folder figs.</p> <p>The dataset contains:<br> Five folders:<br> - srcdata: the source data with all plt files (1708 files) generated by Cahn Hilliard equation solver<br> - data: the data used by graspi to compute descriptors (these are txt files stored as row-wise array, the volume fraction has been segmented using tools of graspi)<br> - logs: 1708 log files with the descriptors generated by graspi (native C++ version)<br> - figs: 1708 png files with visualized morphologies</p> <p>Two tables (in comma separated values format):<br> - Combined PSP.csv (combined data on process-structure-property maps), where process information consists of three variables: PHI, CHI, NN (volume fraction, interaction parameter and time step index)<br> - AllPropertiesCurated.csv - File with results from EDD - see reference below for more details</p> <p>One shell script: extractDesc.sh to build CombinedPSP.csv table from three sources: filename (contains info about PHI, CHI, NN), descriptors (graspi and logs), and Jsc (from AllPropertiesCurated.csv)</p> <p>More details on the dataset: Wodo, O., J. Zola, . Pokuri, P. Du, and B. Ganapathysubramanian. "Automated, high throughput exploration of process–structure–property relationships using the mapreduce paradigm." Materials discovery 1 (2015): 21-28.</p> <p> </p>
Dataset: Time-dependent source apportionment of submicron organic aerosol for a rural site in an alpine valley using a rolling positive matrix factorisation (PMF) window
<p>Uploaded igor pxp files are the data to generate all figures of the results from our publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics with the name of <em>"Time dependent source apportionment of submicron organic aerosol for a rural site in an alpine valley using a rolling PMF window"</em> by Chen et al. (2021).</p> <p>This study deployed a novel and advanced source apportionment technique on a dataset measured in Magadino. Rolling PMF allows retrieving more realistic, time-dependent and detailed information of the organic aerosol sources. This work highlights the strength of the rolling PMF mechanism by comparing it with the results derived from conventional seasonal PMF. Overall, this comprehensive interpretation of chemical speciation monitor (ACSM) data could be a role model for similar analyses.</p>
Global health burden of ambient PM2.5 and the role of anthropogenic black carbon and organic aerosols
<p><strong>SI Dataset S1 (</strong><strong>SI DataS1)</strong></p> <p>Excess mortality from ambient PM<sub>2<em>.</em>5 </sub>exposure among adults, children, and neonates.</p> <p><strong>SI Dataset S2 (</strong><strong>SI DataS2)</strong></p> <p>Pie charts showing distribution of excess death by disease among adults, children, and neonates.</p> <p><strong>SI Dataset S3 (</strong><strong>SI DataS3)</strong></p> <p>Sector contribution to ambient PM<sub>2<em>.</em>5</sub>-related excess death under EqT and 2BSP assumptions</p> <p><strong>SI Dataset S4 (</strong><strong>SI DataS4)</strong></p> <p>Excess death from ambient BC exposure and contributions of major anthropogenic sectors.</p> <p><strong>SI Dataset S5 (</strong><strong>SI DataS5)</strong></p> <p>Excess death from ambient POA exposure and contribution of major anthropogenic sectors.</p> <p><strong>SI Dataset S6 (</strong><strong>SI DataS6)</strong></p> <p>Excess death from ambient aSOA exposure and contribution of major anthropogenic sectors.</p> <p><strong>SI Dataset S7 (</strong><strong>SI DataS7)</strong></p> <p>Sector contribution to excess death under EqT and 2BSP relative toxicity assumptions by major regions.</p>
IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 2nd Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized in a single panel
<p>IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized in a single panel (all stakeholder groups in a single panel, 2 rounds), about the views of stakeholders regarding “This aspect should be considered in the evaluation of new medicines on a common basis” (2019)</p> <p>For details on the Web-Delphi process, see: IMPACT HTA, Work Package 7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2, Deliverable 7.2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Advancing knowledge and MCDA tools to assist HTA agencies in evaluating medicines on a common basis (2021) Oliveira, M.D. (IST), Panos Kanavos (LSE), Bana e Costa, C. (IST)</p>
IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 1st Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized into 6 separate parallel panels
<p>IMPACT HTA, WP7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Results of the 1<sup>st</sup> Web-Delphi process to HTA stakeholders, organized into 6 separate parallel panels (one panel per stakeholder group, 2 rounds), about the views of stakeholders regarding “This aspect should be considered in the evaluation of new medicines on a common basis” (2019)</p> <p>For details on the Web-Delphi process, see: IMPACT HTA, Work Package 7 (Methodological tools using multi-criteria value methods for HTA decision-making), Task 2, Deliverable 7.2 (Multi-criteria evaluation framework), Advancing knowledge and MCDA tools to assist HTA agencies in evaluating medicines on a common basis (2021) Oliveira, M.D. (IST), Panos Kanavos (LSE), Bana e Costa, C. (IST)</p>
Data and Code from: On-farm land management strategies and production challenges in United States Organic Agricultural Systems.
<p>This repository contains data and code used in:</p> <p>Isaac Mpanga, Russel Trondstad, Jessica Guo, David LeBauer, and John Omololu, 2021. On-farm land management strategies and production challenges in United States Organic Agricultural Systems. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability.</p> <p>It provides USDA Surveys of Agricultural Production from 2008-2019 to investigate state and national trends by state in organic farm area, number, and sales, as well to evaluate national trends in on-farm land-use practices and challenges facing US organic production.</p> <p>It also includes code used to transform, visualize, and analyze the data, and derived data products - notably organic farm area and sales with values imputed to correct for redacted state level measures.</p>
Driving social and economic development in the MENA region: the role of international organizations - Stakeholders' engagement meeting report
<p>On 15 November 2018, the Center for Public Policy and Democracy Studies (PODEM) hosted a stakeholders’ meeting in Istanbul with twenty-nine participants, including academics, experts, and representatives from civil society and international humanitarian and development organizations from Europe and the MENA region, as part of the Middle East North Africa Regional Architecture Project (MENARA). Through two panels of expert presentations and facilitated discussion, the participants addressed present challenges, ongoing transformations and future opportunities facing societies across the region, as well as the role of international organizations in addressing these challenges and opportunities. This report will summarize the discussion during that meeting in two broad parts, focusing on the region’s challenges and positive developments respectively and is further divided into sections by issue subject. Two sets of policy recommendations are provided at the end of the report.</p>
Soil biological, chemical and physical parameters and herbage yield in a field experiment with organic and inorganic fertilizers on peat grassland in the Netherlands
<p>To evaluate the performance of organic and inorganic fertilizers for regeneration of ecosystem services in peat grasslands with biodiversity goals, we carried out a field experiment in the western peat district in the Netherlands. The fertilizers tested represent the current practice and potential alternatives for regenerative grassland management on drained peat.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Experimental setup</strong></p> <p>The field experiment (2013 – 2015) was conducted on a permanent grassland on peat soil (Terric Histosol; SOM 56 g 100 g<sup>−1</sup> and pH<sub>KCl</sub> of 4.5 in 0-10 cm) at the experimental dairy farm at Zegveld (the Netherlands). In March 2013, a randomized block experiment (six blocks) was laid out with six fertilizer treatments and a control treatment (no fertilizer: “Contr”). The fertilizer used were: conventional dairy cattle slurry manure (“Slurry”), mature compost of kitchen and garden waste (“Comp”), dairy cattle farmyard manure (“FYM”), solid fraction of the cattle slurry manure (“SFrac”, obtained by pressurized filtration), inorganic N fertilizer (“IF”; calcium ammonium nitrate, 27% N) and a combination of inorganic N fertilizer and sawdust (“IF+SD”). Plot size was 4 × 10 m; for the Slurry treatment plots were 5.2 × 10 m. Slurry was applied by slit injection, the other fertilizers were applied by hand. Target application rate was 120 kg total N ha<sup>−1</sup> yr<sup>−1</sup>, divided in two applications per year (February/March and May). This is relatively low for conventional grasslands but usual for grasslands with biodiversity goals (Kleijn et al., 2004). The amount of C<sub>total</sub> applied in Comp was taken for the rate of sawdust to be applied. All plots were fertilized with 200 kg K<sub>2</sub>O ha<sup>−1</sup> yr<sup>−1</sup> (applications in March and May) (Commissie Bemesting Grasland en Voedergewassen, 2019). Fertilizer application quantities and organic matter and nutrient inputs are provided in Fertilizer_intput.csv (dataset).</p> <p>The grassland had an history of conventional management with mainly cutting, winter grazing with sheep and a normal fertilization regime with both slurry manure and inorganic fertilizer. The normal cutting and grazing regime was continued in the first two years of the experiment; during 2015, the monitoring year, the plots were not grazed and only cut for herbage measurements.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Measurements</strong></p> <p>From April to October 2015, soil and aboveground measurements were carried out. Most soil parameters were measured in October. Earthworms and insect larvae are an important food source for meadow birds during the pre-breeding period in spring (Galbraith, 1989) and were therefore sampled in April. Soil moisture and penetration resistance were measured both in April and October.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Soil biological parameters</em></p> <p>Earthworms and insect larvae were sampled in the top soil layer in two soil cubes (20 × 20 × 20 cm) per plot. Earthworms were hand-sorted, counted, weighed and fixed in alcohol prior to identification. Both adults and juveniles were identified to species (Sims and Gerard, 1985; Stöp-Bowitz, 1969) and classified into functional groups (Bouché, 1977). Crane flies (Tipulidae; leatherjackets) or click beetles (Elateridae; wireworms) larvae were counted.</p> <p>Phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA) were measured in October. PLFA were extracted from 4 g of fresh soil (Palojärvi, 2006), and analyzed by gas chromatography (Hewlett-Packard, USA). PLFA i15:0, a15:0, 15:0, i16:0, 16:1ω9, i17:0, a17:0, cy17:0, 18:1ω7 and cy19:0 were chosen to represent bacteria and PLFA 18:2ω6 was used as a marker of saprotrophic fungi (Hedlund, 2002). The neutral lipid fatty acid (NLFA) 16:1ω5 occurs in storage lipids of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and was used as marker of AMF (Vestberg et al., 2012). PLFA i15:0, a15:0, i16:0, i17:0 and a17:0 were used as a measure of Gram-positive bacteria, and cy17:0 and cy19:0 for Gram-negative bacteria. PLFA 10Me16:0, 10Me17:0 and 10Me18:0 represented actinomycetes.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Soil chemical parameters</em></p> <p>A soil sample from the 0−10 cm layer (c. 50 randomly taken soil cores) per experimental plot was collected in October (auger diameter 2.3 cm; Eijkelkamp grass plot sampler, Giesbeek, the Netherlands), was sieved (1 cm mesh size) and homogenized. One sub-sample was taken for analysis of hot water extractable carbon (HWC) according to Ghani et al. (2003) and one for chemical analysis. Prior to analysis of soil acidity (pH<sub>KCl</sub>), soil organic matter (SOM), total carbon (C<sub>total</sub>), total nitrogen (N<sub>total</sub>), total phosphorus (P<sub>total</sub>) and ammonium-lactate extractable P (P<sub>AL</sub>) by Eurofins Agro (Wageningen, the Netherlands), the sub sample was dried at 40°C. Soil pH<sub>KCl</sub> was measured according to NEN-ISO 10390 2005. SOM was determined by loss-on-ignition (NEN 5754 2005). C<sub>total</sub> was measured by incineration at 1150°C, and determination of the CO<sub>2</sub> produced by an infrared detector (LECO Corporation, St. Joseph, Mich., USA). For N<sub>total</sub>, evolved gasses after incineration were reduced to N<sub>2</sub> and measured with a thermal-conductivity detector (LECO Corporation, St. Joseph, Mich., USA). P<sub>total</sub> was analysed with Fleishmann acid (Houba et al., 1997). P<sub>AL</sub> is used to assess the P supply capacity of grassland soils (Reijneveld et al., 2014) and was determined according to Egnér et al. (1960) (NEN 5793).</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Soil physical parameters</em></p> <p>Soil moisture was determined in April and October in a homogenized 0−10 cm soil sample after drying at 105°C for 24 hrs. Moisture content was expressed as percentage of fresh soil weight.</p> <p>Penetration resistance was measured (April and October) with a penetrologger (Eijkelkamp, Giesbeek, the Netherlands; cone of 2.0 cm<sup>2</sup> penetration surface and 60° apex angle. Penetration resistance was expressed as an average of 7 penetrations per plot and per soil layer of 0−10, 10−20, and 20−30 cm.</p> <p>Soil structure and rooting density were assessed in October in the 0−10 cm and 10−25 cm layers. The percentage of crumbs, sub-angular blocky elements and angular blocky elements was estimated by one experienced person as described by Peerlkamp (1959) and Shepherd (2000), Root density was estimated by scoring visible roots (score 1–10; 1 for no roots and 10 for above average).</p> <p>Water infiltration rate was measured in October at three spots per experimental plot in 5 of the 6 blocks (35 plots). A PVC pipe (15 cm high, 15 cm diameter) was pushed into the soil to a depth of 10 cm. 500 ml water was poured into each pipe and the infiltration time was recorded. If the infiltration time exceeded 15 min, the remaining water volume was estimated to calculate the infiltration rate (mm min<sup>−1</sup>).</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Grass yield and botanical composition</em></p> <p>Grass dry matter (DM) and N yield were determined during 2015 with a Haldrup plot harvester (J. Haldrup a/s, Løgstør, Denmark). The four harvest dates were May 15, June 29, August 19 and September 30. Fresh biomass, DM content (70°C for 24 hrs) and total N content (Kjeldahl) were determined for each harvest. Herbage DM yield (Mg DM ha<sup>−1</sup>) and herbage N yield (kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>) were calculated. Apparent N recovery (ANR; kg N.kg N<sup>−1</sup>) was calculated as (N yield<sub>(fertilized)</sub> – N yield<sub>(non-fertilized)</sub>)/(N fertilization rate) (Vellinga and André, 1999).</p> <p>In June 2015, botanical composition was measured by visually estimating the relative soil cover of the sward and the proportion of each species therein (Sikkema, 1997).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Data files</strong></p> <ul> </ul> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Data_soil_grass.csv</strong></em></p> <p><em>Content:</em></p> <p>Dataset with soil biological (earthworms, microbial PLFA), soil chemical, soil physical parameters, herbage dry matter and N yields, and botanical parameters.</p> <p><em>Column names and units:</em></p> <ul> <li>plot: Experimental plot number (1-42)</li> <li>treatment: Treatment code (see text)</li> <li>block: Block number (1-6)</li> <li>EW_species_number: Earthworm - number of species</li> <li>EW_totalnumber: Earthworm - total number per m2</li> <li>EW_epigeic: Earthworm - number of epigeic adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_endogeic: Earthworm - number of endogeic adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_adults: Earthworm - number of adults per m2</li> <li>EW_juveniles: Earthworm - number of juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_epigeic: Earthworm - number of epigeic adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_endogeic: Earthworm - number of endogeic adults per m2</li> <li>EW_juven_epigeic: Earthworm - number of epigeic juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_juven_endogeic: Earthworm - number of endogeic juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_L_rubellus: Earthworm - number of L. rubellus adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_A_chlorotica: Earthworm - number of A. chlorotica adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_A_caliginosa: Earthworm - number of A. caliginosa adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_O_lacteum: Earthworm - number of O. lacteum adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_A_rosea: Earthworm - number of A. rosea adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_O_cyaenum: Earthworm - number of O. cyaneum adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_L_castaneus: Earthworm - number of L. castaneus adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_D_rubida: Earthworm - number of D. rubida adults and juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_L_rubellus: Earthworm - number of L. rubellus adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_A_chlorotica: Earthworm - number of A. chlorotica adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_A_caliginosa: Earthworm - number of A. caliginosa adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_O_lacteum: Earthworm - number of O. lacteum adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_A_rosea: Earthworm - number of A. rosea adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_O_cyaenum: Earthworm - number of O. cyaneum adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_L_castaneus: Earthworm - number of L. castaneus adults per m2</li> <li>EW_adult_D_rubida: Earthworm - number of D. rubida adults per m2</li> <li>EW_juven_L_rubellus: Earthworm - number of L. rubellus juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_juven_A_chlorotica: Earthworm - number of A. chlorotica juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_juven_A_caliginosa: Earthworm - number of A. caliginosa juveniles per m2</li> <li>EW_non_determined: Earthworm - number of non determined individuals per m2</li> <li>EW_total_biomass: Earthworm - total fresh biomass per m2</li> <li>Leatherjackets: number of leatherjackets per m2</li> <li>Wireworms: number of wireworms per m2</li> <li>TOTmicrPLFA: total microbial PLFA in nmol.g-1 dry soil</li> <li>bactPLFA: bacterial PLFA in nmol.g-1 dry soil</li> <li>saprofungPLFA: saprotrophic fungal PLFA in nmol.g-1 dry soil</li> <li>Fung_bactPLAF_ratio: ratio of fungal to bacterial PLFA</li> <li>GramPLUSplfa: gram positive PLFA in nmol.g-1 dry soil</li> <li>GramMINplfa: gram negative PLFA in nmol.g-1 dry soil</li> <li>ratioGram_PLUS_MIN: ratio of gram positive to gram negative PLFA</li> <li>AMFsporNLFA: AMF spores NLFA in nmol.g-1 dry soil</li> <li>ActinomPLFA: Actinomycetes PLFA in nmol.g-1 dry soil</li> <li>ShannonPLFA: PLFA shannon diversity index</li> <li>SOM: soil organic matter in g.100 g-1 dry soil</li> <li>Ctotal: total C in g.100 g-1 dry soil</li> <li>HWC: hot water extractable C in μg.100 g-1 dry soil</li> <li>Ntotal: total N in g.100 g-1 dry soil</li> <li>Ptotal: total P2O5 in mg.100 g-1 dry soil</li> <li>P_AL: total P-AL in mg.100 g-1 dry soil</li> <li>pH_KCl: pH-KCl</li> <li>CN_ratio: C:N ratio</li> <li>C_SOM: C:SOM ratio</li> <li>Soilmoisture_April: soil moisture content in April in g.100g-1 fresh soil</li> <li>Penetrationresistance_April_cm010: penetration resistance in April in 10-20 cm in Newton</li> <li>Penetrationresistance_April_cm1020: penetration resistance in April in 20-30 cm in Newton</li> <li>Penetrationresistance_April_cm2030: penetration resistance in April in 0-10 cm in Newton</li> <li>Soilmoisture_October: soil moisture content in October in g.100g-1 fresh soil</li> <li>Penetrationresistance_October_cm010: penetration resistance in October in 10-20 cm in Newton</li> <li>Penetrationresistance_October_cm1020: penetration resistance in October in 20-30 cm in Newton</li> <li>Penetrationresistance_October_cm2030: penetration resistance in October in 0-10 cm in Newton</li> <li>crumb_struct_cm010: percentage of crumb elements in 0-10 cm</li> <li>round_struct_cm011: percentage of sub-angular elements in 0-10 cm</li> <li>rootdensity_cm010: score (1-10) of root density in 0-10 cm</li> <li>crumb_struct_cm1025: percentage of crumb elements in 10-25 cm</li> <li>round_struct_cm1025: percentage of sub-angular elements in 10-25 cm</li> <li>sharp_struct_cm1025: percentage of angular elements in 10-25 cm</li> <li>rootdensity_cm1025: score (1-10) of root density in 10-25 cm</li> <li>water_infiltration: water infiltration rate in mm per minute</li> <li>DM_yield_year: total herbage dry matter yield in kg.ha-1 per year</li> <li>DM_yield_H1: herbage dry matter yield of harvest 1 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>DM_yield_H2: herbage dry matter yield of harvest 2 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>DM_yield_H3: herbage dry matter yield of harvest 3 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>DM_yield_H4: herbage dry matter yield of harvest 4 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>N_yield_year: total herbage N yield in kg.ha-1 per year</li> <li>N_yield_H1: herbage N yield of harvest 1 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>N_yield_H2: herbage N yield of harvest 2 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>N_yield_H3: herbage N yield of harvest 3 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>N_yield_H4: herbage N yield of harvest 4 in kg.ha-1</li> <li>DMperc_yield_year: herbage dry matter content (per year; weighed average over the 4 harvests) in g.100g-1 fresh weight</li> <li>DMperc_yield_H1: herbage dry matter content of harvest 1 in g.100g-1 fresh weight</li> <li>DMperc_yield_H2: herbage dry matter content of harvest 2 in g.100g-1 fresh weight</li> <li>DMperc_yield_H3: herbage dry matter content of harvest 3 in g.100g-1 fresh weight</li> <li>DMperc_yield_H4: herbage dry matter content of harvest 4 in g.100g-1 fresh weight</li> <li>Ncontent_yield_year: herbage N content (per year; weighed average over the 4 harvests) in g.kg-1 dry matter</li> <li>Ncontent_yield_H1: herbage N content of harvest 1 in g.kg-1 dry matter</li> <li>Ncontent_yield_H2: herbage N content of harvest 2 in g.kg-1 dry matter</li> <li>Ncontent_yield_H3: herbage N content of harvest 3 in g.kg-1 dry matter</li> <li>Ncontent_yield_H4: herbage N content of harvest 4 in g.kg-1 dry matter</li> <li>fresh_yield_H1: herbvage fresh yield of harvest 1 in Mg.ha-1</li> <li>ANR: apparent N recovery in kg N.kg N-1</li> <li>productive_grasses: cover percentage of L. perenne and P trivialis</li> <li>monocotyledons: cover percentage of monocotyledons</li> <li>dicotyledons: cover percentage of dicotyledons</li> <li>plant_species: number of plant species</li> <li>monocot_species: number of monocotyledon species</li> <li>dicot_species: number of dicotyledon species</li> <li>Lolium_perenne: plant cover %</li> <li>Poa_trivialis: plant cover %</li> <li>Phleum_pratense: plant cover %</li> <li>Elytrigia_repens: plant cover %</li> <li>Poa_annua: plant cover %</li> <li>Agrostis_stolonifera: plant cover %</li> <li>Holcus_lanatus: plant cover %</li> <li>Alopecurus_pratensis: plant cover %</li> <li>Alopecurus_geniculatus: plant cover %</li> <li>Trifolium_repens: plant cover %</li> <li>Taraxacum_officinale: plant cover %</li> <li>Ranunculus_arvensis: plant cover %</li> <li>Rumex_obtusifolius: plant cover %</li> <li>Rumex_crispus: plant cover %</li> <li>Ranunculus_acris: plant cover %</li> <li>Stellaria_media: plant cover %</li> <li>Cardamine_pratensis: plant cover %</li> <li>Bellis_perennis: plant cover %</li> <li>Rumex_acetosa: plant cover %</li> <li>Ranunculus_sceleratus: plant cover %</li> <li>Polygonum_aviculare: plant cover %</li> <li>Capsella_bursa-pastoris: plant cover %</li> <li>Glechoma_hederacea: plant cover %</li> <li>Geranium_molle: plant cover %</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Fertilizer_input.csv</strong></em></p> <p><em>Content:</em></p> <p>Application quantities of fertilizers and ash, organic matter, C and mineral inputs, and fertilizer C:N ratio. Total N input is the sum of mineral N (Nmin) and organic N (Norg). Average values per hectare and per year over the years 2013−2015.</p> <p><em>Column names and units:</em></p> <ul> <li>Treatment: Treatment code (see text)</li> <li>Fertilizer_fresh: Applied fertilizer in Mg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year (fresh weight)</li> <li>Fertilizer_DM: Applied fertilizer in Mg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year (dry matter weight); for IF+SD this is the sum of 2.72 Mg sawdust + 0.45 Mg N fertilizer</li> <li>Ash: Mineral fraction in kg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year</li> <li>OM: Organic matter in kg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year</li> <li>C: Total C in kg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year</li> <li>Nmin: Mineral N in kg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year</li> <li>Norg: Organic N in kg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year</li> <li>P2O5: kg.ha<sup>-1</sup> per year</li> <li>C_N_ratio: C:N ratio</li> </ul>
Pre-Publication Dataset: Is Remote Sensing a Better Measure of Internet Censorship than Expert Analysis? Analyzing Tradeoffs for International Donors and Advocacy Organizations
<p>These are the underlying data and do file to support the analysis in the forthcoming paper "Is Remote Sensing a Better Measure of Internet Censorship than Expert Analysis? Analyzing Tradeoffs for International Donors and Advocacy Organizations" that has been submitted to the <em>Data & Policy </em>Journal. This is an expanded and updated version of the Data For Policy conference paper "Comparing Measures of Internet Censorship: Analyzing the Tradeoffs between Expert Analysis and Remote Measurement" (10.5281/zenodo.3967398).</p>
Stream metabolism (as resazurin-resorufin transformation) along a boreal headwater stream and its relation to groundwater organic matter supply
<p>Datasets supporting the manuscript entitled "<strong><em>Groundwater-stream connections shape the spatial patterns and rates of aquatic metabolism</em></strong>", published in L<em>imnology and Oceanography Letters</em>. Three datasets are available:</p> <ul> <li>"<em><strong>Groundwater_Characterization.csv":</strong></em> dissolved organic matter characterization of and heterotrophic activity associated with, the major water sources discharging into a headwater boreal stream during summer 2017. Major water sources are: lake water and five discrete groundwater inflows (here named as <em>discrete riparian inflow points)</em>.</li> <li>"<em><strong>Raz_Additions.csv</strong></em>": Constant-rate additions of resazurin performed in a boreal headwater stream (Krycklan catchment, Sweden) during seven dates of summer 2017. Data contains resazurin and resorufin concentrations from the surface and hyporheic water at 18 stations along a 90-m long reach. </li> <li>"<em><strong>Raz_transformation_metric.csv</strong></em>": Hydrologic and metabolic characterization of the 90-m long reach for the seven resazurin additions conducted in summer 2017. </li> </ul> <p>More information about the data can be found in the document "<strong><em>Metadata.doc</em></strong>". Information about field and laboratory procedures can be found in the main manuscript or in the document "<strong><em>Supporting_Information.doc</em></strong>".</p>
Germination of crop species in response to whole-soil inoculants that originate from conventional vs organic farming systems
<p>Dataset of manuscript entitled “Germination of crop species in response to whole-soil inoculants that originate from conventional vs organic farming systems”. This manuscript includes the results of WP2 from the SOFT project (ref. 890874).</p>
Soil extracellular enzyme activity increases during the transition from conventional to organic farming
<p>Dataset of manuscript entitled “Soil extracellular enzyme activity increases during the transition from conventional to organic farming”. This manuscript includes the results of WP1 from the SOFT project (ref. 890874).</p>
Material Property Database of Organic Liquids, Ices, and Hazes on Titan
<p>Titan has a diverse range of materials in its atmosphere and on its surface: the simple organics that reside in various phases (gas, liquid, ice) and the solid complex refractory organics that form Titan's haze layers. These materials all actively participate in various physical processes on Titan, and many material properties are found to be important in shaping these processes. Future in-situ exploration on Titan would likely encounter a range of materials, and a comprehensive database to archive the material properties of all possible material candidates will be needed.</p> <p>Here we archive several important material properties of the organic liquids, ices, and the refractory hazes on Titan that are available in the literature and/or that we have computed. These properties include thermodynamic properties (phase change points, sublimation and vaporization saturation vapor pressure, and latent heat), physical property (density), and surface properties (liquid surface tensions and solid surface energies).</p> <p>We have archived all the data involved in our first paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01394 for the Arxiv version and https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acc6cf for the publisher version) here to make them available to the science community. These data can be used as inputs for various theoretical models to interpret current and future remote sensing and in-situ atmospheric and surface measurements on Titan. The material properties of the simple organics may also be applicable to giant planets and icy bodies in the outer solar system, interstellar medium, and protoplanetary disks.</p> <p>The "Summary of Data Tables and Jupyter Notebook Files" summarizes the names of all the data files (.csv) and Jupyter Notebook files (.ipynb) and their corresponding Tables in the paper.</p> <p><strong>Please cite our paper in your use of the data: Yu et al. (2023), https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acc6cf</strong></p> <p><strong>Yu, X., Yu, Y., Garver, J., Li, J., Hawthorn, A., Sciamma-O’Brien, E., ... & Barth, E. (2023). Material Properties of Organic Liquids, Ices, and Hazes on Titan. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 266(2), 30.</strong></p>
Metal-organic frameworks as regeneration optimized sorbents for atmospheric water harvesting
<p>Dataset for 'Metal-organic frameworks as regeneration optimized sorbents for atmospheric water harvesting' article published at <em>Cell Reports Physical Science, </em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101252">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101252</a>.</p> <p>Code used for data analysis, visualization and kinetics modelling can be found at <a href="https://github.com/AndreyBezrukov/Water_Sorption_Kinetics">AndreyBezrukov/Water_Sorption_Kinetics (github.com)</a></p>
Dataset for the "a parameterization for cloud organization and propagation by evaporation-driven cold pools edges"
<p>When the negatively buoyant air in the cloud downdrafts reaches the surface, it spreads out horizontally, producing cold pools. A cold pool can trigger new convective cells. However, when combined with the ambient vertical wind shear, it can also connect and upscale them into large mesoscale convective systems (MCS). Given the broad spectrum of scales of the atmospheric phenomenon involving the interaction between cold pools and the MCS, a parameterization was designed here. Then, it is coupled with a classical convection parameterization to be applied in an atmospheric model with an insufficient spatial resolution to explicitly resolve convection and the sub-cloud layer. A new scalar quantity related to the deficit of moist static energy detrained by the downdrafts mass flux is proposed. This quantity is subject to grid-scale advection, mixing, and a sink term representing dissipation processes. The model is then applied to simulate moist convection development over a large portion of tropical land in the Amazon Basin in a wet and dry-to-wet 10-days period. Our results show that the cold pool edge parameterization improves the organization, longevity, propagation, and severity of simulated MCS over the Amazon and other different continental areas.</p><p> </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.