Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2022View details →

Dataset - Clustering Semantic Predicates in the Open Research Knowledge Graph

<p>This dataset has been created for implementing a content-based recommender system in the context of the Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG). The recommender system accepts research paper's title and abstracts as input and recommends existing predicates in the ORKG semantically relevant to the given paper.</p> <p> </p> <p>The paper instances in the dataset are grouped by ORKG comparisons and therefore the <strong><em>data.json</em></strong> file is more comprehensive than <strong><em>training_set.json</em></strong> and <strong><em>test_set.json.</em></strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>data.json</em></strong></p> <p>The main JSON object consists of a list of comparisons. Each comparisons object has an ID, label, list of papers and list of predicates, whereas each paper object has ID, label, DOI, research field, research problems and abstract. Each predicate object has an ID and a label. See an example instance below.</p> <pre><code class="language-json">{ "comparisons": [ { "id": "R108331", "label": "Analysis of approaches based on required elements in way of modeling", "papers": [ { "id": "R108312", "label": "Rapid knowledge work visualization for organizations", "doi": "10.1108/13673270710762747", "research_field": { "id": "R134", "label": "Computer and Systems Architecture" }, "research_problems": [ { "id": "R108294", "label": "Enterprise engineering" } ], "abstract": "Purpose \u2013 The purpose of this contribution is to motivate a new, rapid approach to modeling knowledge work in organizational settings and to introduce a software tool that demonstrates the viability of the envisioned concept.Design/methodology/approach \u2013 Based on existing modeling structures, the KnowFlow toolset that aids knowledge analysts in rapidly conducting interviews and in conducting multi\u2010perspective analysis of organizational knowledge work is introduced.Findings \u2013 This article demonstrates how rapid knowledge work visualization can be conducted largely without human modelers by developing an interview structure that allows for self\u2010service interviews. Two application scenarios illustrate the pressing need for and the potentials of rapid knowledge work visualizations in organizational settings.Research limitations/implications \u2013 The efforts necessary for traditional modeling approaches in the area of knowledge management are often prohibitive. This contribution argues that future research needs ..." }, .... ], "predicates": [ { "id": "P37126", "label": "activities, behaviours, means [for knowledge development and/or for knowledge conveyance and transformation" }, { "id": "P36081", "label": "approach name" }, .... ] }, .... ] }</code></pre> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>training_set.json </em></strong>and<strong><em> test_set.json</em></strong></p> <p>The main JSON object consists of a list of training/test instances. Each instance has an instance_id with the format (comparison_id X paper_id) and a text. The text is a concatenation of the paper's label (title) and abstract. See an example instance below.</p> <p>Note that test instances are not duplicated and do not occur in the training set. Training instances are also not duplicated, BUT training papers can be duplicated in a concatenation with different comparisons.</p> <pre><code class="language-json">{ "instances": [ { "instance_id": "R108331xR108301", "comparison_id": "R108331", "paper_id": "R108301", "text": "A notation for Knowledge-Intensive Processes Business process modeling has become essential for managing organizational knowledge artifacts. However, this is not an easy task, especially when it comes to the so-called Knowledge-Intensive Processes (KIPs). A KIP comprises activities based on acquisition, sharing, storage, and (re)use of knowledge, as well as collaboration among participants, so that the amount of value added to the organization depends on process agents' knowledge. The previously developed Knowledge Intensive Process Ontology (KIPO) structures all the concepts (and relationships among them) to make a KIP explicit. Nevertheless, KIPO does not include a graphical notation, which is crucial for KIP stakeholders to reach a common understanding about it. This paper proposes the Knowledge Intensive Process Notation (KIPN), a notation for building knowledge-intensive processes graphical models." }, ... ] }</code></pre> <p> </p> <p><strong>Dataset Statistics:</strong></p> <table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th scope="col">-</th> <th scope="col">Papers</th> <th scope="col">Predicates</th> <th scope="col">Research Fields</th> <th scope="col">Research Problems</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Min/Comparison</td> <td>2</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Max/Comparison</td> <td>202</td> <td>112</td> <td>5</td> <td>23</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Avg./Comparison</td> <td>21,54</td> <td>12,79</td> <td>1,20</td> <td>1,09</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total</td> <td>4060</td> <td>1816</td> <td>46</td> <td>178</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Dataset Splits:</strong></p> <table align="center"> <thead> <tr> <th scope="col">-</th> <th scope="col">Papers</th> <th scope="col">Comparisons</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Training Set</td> <td>2857</td> <td>214</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Test Set</td> <td>1203</td> <td>180</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>

Figure 2 from: Klein A, Ghosh S (2016) Graph-based clinical diagnosis and prediction using multi-modal neuroimaging data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8835. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8835

Figure 2 - Examples of automatically extracted features (MRI) (a) Example structural features (left lateral views of volumes, surfaces, curves, and points) (b) Schematic feature hierarchy: 3-D gyrii surround a 2-D sulcal ribbon with 1-D fundus containing 0-D pits

Figure 1 from: Klein A, Ghosh S (2016) Graph-based clinical diagnosis and prediction using multi-modal neuroimaging data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8835. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8835

Figure 1 - Examples of graph-based representations of scientific data among hundreds on the www.visualcomplexity.com website (categories on the site include biology, food webs and semantic, social, and knowledge networks). Lower left images of DTI, connectome, and network hubs are from Olaf Sporns (2010, Scholarpedia, 5(2):5584).

Figure 3 from: Klein A, Ghosh S (2016) Graph-based clinical diagnosis and prediction using multi-modal neuroimaging data. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8835. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8835

Figure 3 - Example of a graph-based representation of MRI and DTI features (a) A gray/white matter surface (left lateral view) with (visible) sulcal pits highlighted. These features go by different names (sulcal roots, buried gyrii, annectant gyrii, plis de passage) and may be well conserved structures formed early in development. (b) DTI connectivity graph computed on the same patient with depression as on the left panel. Vertices represent automatically extracted sulcal pits and each edge indicates a connection probability greater than 0.01 between two vertices.

Figure 2 from: Klein A (2016) Brain Graph Interface. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8817. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8817

Figure 2 - Schematic of Mindboggle's graph-based database of anatomical features. Top: different structures derived from brain images: surface patches fragmented by application of the Laplace-Beltrami operator, sulcus folds and subfolds, and structures within a subfold. Bottom: schematic graph diagrams representing the relationships among the nested structures. Bottom right: examples of features as properties of edges (relationships such as Part of, Connected to, Has label) and nodes (geometric, shape, and spectral measures).

Figure 3 from: Klein A (2016) Brain Graph Interface. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8817. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8817

Figure 3 - Example of natural morphological variability: left inferior parietal lobule (IPL; figure from [Kiriyama et al. 2009]). (A-D) are MRI data and (E-G) are post-mortem specimens. (A) IPL is highlighted and folds are outlined. (B,E) Typical folding pattern. (C,F) PreSMG pattern: an additional gyrus (ellipse) lies between postCS and SMG. (D,G) PreAG pattern: an additional gyrus (ellipse) lies between SMG and AG. [SMG: supramarginal gyrus; AG: angular gyrus; postCS: postcentral sulcus; IPS: intraparietal sulcus; Sy: Sylvian fissure, STS: superior temporal sulcus; *sulcus intermedius primus] postCS IPS * * Sy STS IPL

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2021View details →

Telecommunication Networks as Knowledge Graph Research Datasets

<p><strong>Telecommunication Networks as Knowledge Graph Research Datasets.</strong></p> <p>All the datasets were created using the PC with following parameters: Intel(R) Core(TM)  i7-9750H CPU @ 2.60GHz/16.00 GB RAM 1TB SSD</p> <p>All the software which is used for the datasets creation is available here: https://github.com/kulikovia/TN_KG_research<strong> </strong></p> <p>The datasets and supplementary files description of follow:</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>#</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>File</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Description</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1.</p> </td> <td> <p>Computational_complexity_v5_ (ENG).pdf</p> </td> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests report</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2.</p> </td> <td> <p>Synthesis_performance_tests_results_v1.pdf</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests report</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Computational_complexity_Parallel_v2_ (ENG).pdf</td> <td>Comparision of SPARQL performanse using multi-level KG structure approach and execution using distributed RDF storege </td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>Synthesis_additional_experiments_v4.pdf</td> <td>Additional Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests report (with different elements distribution by levels)</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_10k_hierarchical.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 10k hierarchical model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_10k_one-level.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 10k one-level model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_1k_hierarchical.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 1k hierarchical model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_1k_one-level.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 1k one-level model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_200k_hierarchical.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 200k hierarchical model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_200k_one-level.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 200k one-level model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>11.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_500k_hierarchical.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 500k hierarchical model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>12.</p> </td> <td> <p>Dataset_500k_one-level.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: Input data for 500k one-level model synthesis (CSV)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>13.</p> </td> <td> <p>Synthesis_Hierarchical_RDF-XML.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: RDF/XML datasets for hierarchical models (1k, 10k, 200k, 500k)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>14.</p> </td> <td> <p>Synthesis_Linear_RDF-XML.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>Inductive and deductive synthesis performance tests: RDF/XML datasets for hierarchical models (1k, 10k, 200k, 500k)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>15.</p> </td> <td> <p>Hierarchy_model_results_Exp_10M.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 10M, 3-5-levels, exponential distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>16.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Exp_15M.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 15M, 3-5-levels, exponential distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>17.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Exp_200k.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 200k, 3-5-levels, exponential distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>18.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Linear_10M.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 10M, 3-5-levels, linear distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>19.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Linear_15M.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 15M, 3-5-levels, linear distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>20.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Linear_200k.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 200k, 3-5-levels, linear distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>21.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Quadro_10M.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 10M, 3-5-levels, quadratic distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>22.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Quadro_15M.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 15M, 3-5-levels, quadratic distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Quadro_200k.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 200k, 3-5-levels, quadratic distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>24.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Uniform_10M.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 10M, 3-5-levels, uniform distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>25.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Uniform_15M.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 15M, 3-5-levels, uniform distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>26.</td> <td>Hierarchy_model_results_Uniform_200k.zip</td> <td> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 200k, 3-5-levels, uniform distributed model with connections between source models on levels 2 and 3 in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>27.</p> </td> <td> <p>Linear_model_resuts.zip</p> </td> <td> <p>SPARQL performance tests: Datasets for 200k, 10M, 15M, one-level model in RDF/XML format</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Figure 5 from: Klein A (2016) Brain Graph Interface. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8817. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8817

Figure 5 - Mindboggle features and schematic diagram

Figure 4a from: Klein A (2016) Brain Graph Interface. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8817. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8817

Figure 4a - Folding pattern 1.

Figure 4c from: Klein A (2016) Brain Graph Interface. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8817. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8817

Figure 4c - Folding pattern 3.

Figure 4b from: Klein A (2016) Brain Graph Interface. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8817. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8817

Figure 4b - Folding pattern 2.

Figure 1 from: Klein A (2016) Brain Graph Interface. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8817. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8817

Figure 1 - Mindboggle schematic

Figure 1 from: Page R (2016) Towards a biodiversity knowledge graph. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8767. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8767

Figure 1 - Biodiversity knowledge graph (from Page 2013).