Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 19. Dynamics of the filtered images with the 9 algorithms and the 2 methods of classification-Efficient Filtering of Noisy Fingerprint Images

The classification (Malik, Gautam, Sahai, Jha & Singh, 2013) and ranking stage can be visualized in the Figure 19, the summary of the filtered images is shown in Table 3 and the pseudocode of the current step can be visualized in Figure 18. The overall results show that the two selection criterion: fuzzy and aggregation indicate that the most efficient algorithm is A6 and according to each criterion there can be made certain decisions to choose the best filters for each situation. Also, the results are influenced by the parameters set to calibrate the filtering, the fuzzy profiles, the weighted sum or the vicinity approach.

Figure 6. Algorithm A6pseudocode-Efficient Filtering of Noisy Fingerprint Images

A6&the principle of quartiles applied to the entire image, using the quartiles q1 and q3 as thresholds, but the update refers only for the pixel values only if Q1 < q1 or Q3 > q3, where q1 and q3 are the quartiles calculated in the 10x10 pixels area (Figure 6.);

Figure 18. Classification/ranking algorithmpseudocode-Efficient Filtering of Noisy Fingerprint Images

Figure 7. Algorithm A7pseudocode-Efficient Filtering of Noisy Fingerprint Images

A7&applied to the entire surface using quartiles(Q1 and Q3) in conjunction with an algorithm for the processing of gray tones between Q1 and Q3 is as follows: if in addition is full field the condition that (q2 >Q2), when the initial value of the pixel is adjusted at (initial_value*(1&(q2/q1))), and on the other hand if (q2<Q2) then the value is adjusted to (initial_value*(1+q3/q2 )), please see Figure 7.;

Figure 8. Algorithm A8pseudocode-Efficient Filtering of Noisy Fingerprint Images

A8 & uses the principles of quartiles per global and additionally adjusts the gray tones between Q1 and Q3 as follows: &if (q2<Q2), the pixel shall be updated with the following value (initial_value *(1.1)); &if (q2 >Q2) when the pixel value is updated with (initial_value *(0.9)), and the purpose is to bring q2(local quartile or median) as much closer as possible to Q2(2 quartile or median overall global), please see Figure 8.;

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2018View details →

Boston Fingerprints 2014 - Images

SPARC Project: BostonFingerprints_2014 Principle Investigators: Joseph Bagley and Jennifer Poulsen Contributors: Rachel Opitz (SPARC) Joseph Bagley and Jennifer Poulsen (Boston Landmarks Commission) and Rachel Opitz (SPARC researcher) used a structured light scanner to create detailed 3D models of ceramic artifacts featuring finger and hand prints from the Parker-Harris Pottery Site and Three Cranes tavern Site in Charlestown, Massachusetts. These sites were excavated in the early- and mid-1980s in advance of Boston’s Big Dig as part of the Central Artery North Area, and are now listed in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the City Square Archaeological District. The Parker-Harris Pottery Site was the location of early coarse earthenware (redware) ceramic production in Boston. It was destroyed on June 17, 1775 by British troops who burned Charlestown as part of the Battle of Bunker Hill. The Three Cranes Tavern was founded in the former Great House of Governor John Winthrop in the center of Charlestown, only 100 meters from the Parker-Harris property. The tavern passed through a series of owners resulting in a near-continual use of the property as a Tavern for 140 years. During archaeological investigation numerous privies and features were identified with tightly-dated ceramic assemblages, including numerous coarse earthenwares with the distinct decorative elements of the Parker or Harris pottery. This project aimed to establish that biometric identifiers directly connect pottery from consumption sites to production sites when there are known sales between production and consumption sites, tightly dated deposits that limit association of pottery to specific potters, and a limited number of potters producing these vessels. This type of research could establish previously-unknown associations and commercial networks of domestic redware potters across the eastern United States. With data as unique and personal as a fingerprint, the results of this analysis brings a personal and evocative light to these significant assemblages, allowing the public to appreciate these forgotten and sometimes nameless potters through the intimate association of their hands. This project includes raw and processed data captured using a Breuckmann Smartscan HE structured light scanner with 250mm lenses using Optocat 2013 software. Sixty ceramics were scanned - 30 from Parker-Harris Kiln and 30 from Three Cranes Tavern. This upload contains .pdf files of each ceramic scanned, with fingerprints marked clearly on the sherd. Parker-Harris ceramics are noted as 'ph' while Three Cranes ceramics are noted as 'tc'. Raw data for each ceramic can be found at: https://zenodo.org/deposit/1239541 Processed meshes of each ceramic can be found at: https://zenodo.org/deposit/1237528   Project Name: Boston Fingerprints Survey Location: City of Boston Archaeology Laboratory Survey Dates: 20 - 24 October 2014 Scanner Details: Breuckmann Smartscan HE structured light scanner - 250mm lenses Operator Name: Rachel Opitz Calibration Files: BostonFingerprints2014_RawData_Calib2 Total Number of Scans: 194 Final Datasets for Archive: Raw scan data from Optocat Images from Survey: 388 Software: Optocat 2013

opencc-by-4.0May 2018View details →

Boston Fingerprints 2014 - Raw Data

SPARC Project: BostonFingerprints_2014 Principle Investigators: Joseph Bagley and Jennifer Poulsen Contributors: Rachel Opitz (SPARC) Joseph Bagley and Jennifer Poulsen (Boston Landmarks Commission) and Rachel Opitz (SPARC researcher) used a structured light scanner to create detailed 3D models of ceramic artifacts featuring finger and hand prints from the Parker-Harris Pottery Site and Three Cranes tavern Site in Charlestown, Massachusetts. These sites were excavated in the early- and mid-1980s in advance of Boston’s Big Dig as part of the Central Artery North Area, and are now listed in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the City Square Archaeological District. The Parker-Harris Pottery Site was the location of early coarse earthenware (redware) ceramic production in Boston. It was destroyed on June 17, 1775 by British troops who burned Charlestown as part of the Battle of Bunker Hill. The Three Cranes Tavern was founded in the former Great House of Governor John Winthrop in the center of Charlestown, only 100 meters from the Parker-Harris property. The tavern passed through a series of owners resulting in a near-continual use of the property as a Tavern for 140 years. During archaeological investigation numerous privies and features were identified with tightly-dated ceramic assemblages, including numerous coarse earthenwares with the distinct decorative elements of the Parker or Harris pottery. This project aimed to establish that biometric identifiers directly connect pottery from consumption sites to production sites when there are known sales between production and consumption sites, tightly dated deposits that limit association of pottery to specific potters, and a limited number of potters producing these vessels. This type of research could establish previously-unknown associations and commercial networks of domestic redware potters across the eastern United States. With data as unique and personal as a fingerprint, the results of this analysis brings a personal and evocative light to these significant assemblages, allowing the public to appreciate these forgotten and sometimes nameless potters through the intimate association of their hands. This project includes raw and processed data captured using a Breuckmann Smartscan HE structured light scanner with 250mm lenses using Optocat 2013 software. Sixty ceramics were scanned - 30 from Parker-Harris Kiln and 30 from Three Cranes Tavern. This upload contains the raw Optocat 2013 data for each ceramic scanned. Parker-Harris ceramics are noted as 'ph' while Three Cranes ceramics are noted as 'tc'. Some ceramics have more than one set of raw data due to either having fingerprints on multiple sides (marked as 'sideA' or 'sideB') or to testing different parameters (noted as 'parameter1' or 'parameter2'). Each .zip file contains the complete raw data for each object as well as a FileList.txt file indexing all files that are included in the .zip file.    Project Name: Boston Fingerprints Survey Location: City of Boston Archaeology Laboratory Survey Dates: 20 - 24 October 2014 Scanner Details: Breuckmann Smartscan HE structured light scanner - 250mm lenses Operator Name: Rachel Opitz Calibration Files: BostonFingerprints2014_RawData_Calib2 Total Number of Scans: 194 Final Datasets for Archive: Raw scan data from Optocat Images from Survey: 388 Software: Optocat 2013

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2019View details →

Wi-Fi Fingerprinting dataset with multiple simultaneous interfaces

This dataset was collected within the context of a research project aiming to develop an indoor positioning system for autonomous industrial vehicles. This positioning system is based on fusing data from Wi-Fi sensors, magnetic encoders, and an IMU, using a particle filter. Wi-Fi data is first processed using Wi-Fi fingerprinting.     One of the unique characteristics of this system is that it uses Wi-Fi fingerprints collected simultaneously from multiple, synchronised, Wi-Fi interfaces. Some results about the benefits of using multiple Wi-Fi interfaces are described in:         Moreira, A., Silva, I., Meneses, F., Nicolau, M. J., Pendao, C., & Torres-Sospedra,  J. (2017, September). Multiple simultaneous Wi-Fi measurements in fingerprinting indoor positioning. In 2017 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN) (pp. 1-8). IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IPIN.2017.8115914     These data were collected at a university building that resembles an industrial floor plant, with a total area of around 1000 m2. The data were collected in July 2017.     The data collection setup was based on a Raspberry Pi 3 Model B with its internal Wi-Fi interface, and four additional USB Wi-Fi interfaces (Edimax EW-7811un).

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2024View details →

Data to reproduce the results presented in Lake et al. 2024. Journal of Hydrology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131930. ("High-frequency spatial sediment source fingerprinting using in situ absorbance data")

This repository contains data on the used absorbance data, measured at the field site, as described in Lake et al., 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131930). Furthermore, data on the turbidity, used calibration curves and R code to prepare the input data for the MixSIAR model are included in the data repository.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2024View details →

Fingerprint Matrix Files for "Machine Learning-based Bioactivity Classification of Natural Products Using LC-MS/MS Metabolomics"

These files are the necessary dataset to reproduce the observed machine learning metrics in the paper "Machine Learning-based Bioactivity Classification of Natural Products Using LC-MS/MS Metabolomics" in review at the Journal of Natural Products.  <ul> <li>Multiclassifier_23_Drug_Class_Train-Test_Fingerprint_Matrix.tsv is the accumulated positive training set for the 23 different classes demonstrated in the training and testing sets.</li> <li>Negative_Train-Test_Fingerprint_Matrix.tsv is the negatives training and testing examples derived from the RIKEN NP Depo which represent a diverse set of natural product compounds that serve as the counter points to the positive examples.</li> <li>GNPS_23_Drug_Class_Fingerprints_Matrix.tsv is the dataset of fingerprints generated from the publically available GNPS MSMS dataset. These training examples serve to confirm the ability of the machine learning model to generalize to experimental data. </li> <li> Negative_Train-Test_Fingerprint_Matrix.tsv is the dataset of negative training examples derived from the publically available spectra from the GNPS dataset. It is composed of nearly 2,800 random MSMS spectra to compose a diverse negative evaluation set. </li> <li>Random_GNPS_Fingerprints.tsv is the dataset of fingeprints of 9,443 random spectra from GNPS used to evaluate the false positive rate of each model.</li> </ul>

Figure 20 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 20. Modifications in the profile of the levels of organization of the columnals along the stalk during ontogeny. (a) Guillecrinus neocaledonicus; (b) comparison of adult stages of the two species of Guillecrinus. A, Adult stage (A1 and A2: see Figure 17); J, juvenile stage; Prox. 1, new columnals appearing proximally (proximal vertical axis on Figure 17).

Figure 18 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 18. Reconstruction of the growth curves in Guillecrinus, from specimens retaining the proximal part of the stalk. (a) Ontogenic index (kH) provided by the most proximal segment of the simplified biometric profiles of the heights of the columnals (see Figure 16); (b) ontogenic growth curves using the proximal diameter of the stalk as an index of the size and kH as an index of relative age. AC, aboral cup. See text for explanations.

Figure 17 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 17. Ontogeny of the columnals in relation to their place within the stalk in Guillecrinus. Horizontal row of columnals represents a succession of columnals along individual stalks; lines connecting columnals of adjacent rows represent a succession of ontogenetic stages with a growth in size. For the axial sections below and to the right each columnal cross-section, the black areas schematize the place and the amplitude of the ligamentary depressions. J, juvenile stage; A, adult stage; J2 and A2, observed stages; J1 and A1, earlier stages deduced from observations on J2 and A2; solid lines, ontogenetic trends of G. neocaledonicus; dotted lines, hypothetical relationships with G. reunionensis; r, rigid; f, flexible; a, ankylosis. See text for explanations.

Figure 16 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 16. Simplified schemes of the principal modifications in the biometric profiles of Guillecrinus stalks during ontogeny. Hm, minimal proximal height; Dc, diameter of the base of the aboral cup; DM, maximum proximal diameter; Dm, minimal proximal diameter; dotted area, proxistele; open area, mesistele; short scattered lines, dististele.

Figure 15 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 15. Distribution of the types of articular facets along the adult stalk of Guillecrinus. (A) Ontogenetic distal process (subsidiary crests); (B) proximal ontogenetic process (only interareolar ridges).

Figure 13 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 13. Biometric profiles of the stalk of three specimens of Guillecrinus reunionensis. (m) Fixation disk.

Figure 12 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 12. Proximal and median columnals of Guillecrinus reunionensis. (a) Proximal facet of holotype. (b–f) paratype: (b) columnal under the basal circlet, not visible externally; (c) first visible columnal, proximal facet; (d) the same, distal facet; (e) 62nd columnal, proximal facet; (f) 63rd columnal, proximal facet. ra, radials; ba, basals; col, first columnal; s, suture visible externally. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 9 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 9. Proximal and median columnals of the adult specimens of Guillecrinus neocaledonicus. (a–d) Proximal columnals of the N6 specimen: (a) most proximal columnal, distal facet; (b) same columnal, proximal facet; (c) second columnal, proximal facet; (d) third columnal; (e) one of the proximal columnals of the N7 specimen; (f) most frequent type of columnal in the N7 specimen. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 8 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 8. Biometric profiles of the stalk of the specimens of Guillecrinus neocaledonicus which do not belong to the type series. (m) Fixation disk.

Figure 6 in Environmental control versus phylogenic fingerprint in ontogeny: The example of the development of the stalk in the genus Guillecrinus (stalked crinoids, Echinodermata)

Figure 6. Columnals of the mesistele and dististele of juvenile specimen N3. (a) Columnal 5b; (b, c) columnal 5c; (d) columnal 4; (e) columnal 39; (f) columnal 2 (see their place on the biometric profile on Figure 3). Scale bars: 0.2 mm.