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.
11,879
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
11,879 results for “participation”
User participation in digital accessibility evaluations: reviewing methods and objectives
<p><span>Although laws and standardization bodies promote user participation in digital accessibility evaluations, people with disabilities still consider themselves excluded from this process. One reason could be the lack of systematized knowledge about evaluation methods involving users. This article seeks to understand how and for what purpose digital accessibility evaluations with user participation were conducted in the scientific literature from 2018 to 2021. Three types of user participation emerged: 1) user-based usability testing to evaluate task accomplishment, user reactions and interface qualities; 2) interviewing users to assess the local and social factors impacting digital service accessibility; 3) using questionnaires or crowdsourcing to check the compliance of certain interfaces with accessibility standards. Participants are primarily chosen based on their functional impairments and, to a lesser degree, their project-related skills, biographical information, technology habits, among other criteria. The comprehensive user insights gained with these methods are judged to be positive whereas the lack of representativeness of the selected user samples is found to be regrettable. The article finally discusses the definitions of accessibility and disability that underpin these methodologies.</span></p>
Data and code for: Behavioral plasticity shapes participation in a mixed-species flocking community of birds
<p>Behavioral plasticity can modulate the costs and benefits of sociality, and thus may play a prominent role in mediating competition and facilitation during social interactions in mixed-species groups. However, investigations of assembly patterns of mixed-species groups typically treat species' behavioral attributes as static rather than dynamic features that can change in social contexts. We investigate four axes of behavioral plasticity that may modulate interaction within mixed-species groups: 1) species' selective preference for joining certain groups, 2) species' ability to flexibly change their behavior in response to groupmates' behavior, and 3) shifts and/or 4) expansions of species' niche occupancy when foraging with conspecifics versus when foraging with heterospecifics. We assess variation in these axes of behavioral plasticity in an Australian mixed-species avian community. All species had selective preferences for flocks of certain strata, and some flexibly matched their flockmates' foraging strata. Three species exhibited patterns of niche shift, and one species showed niche expansion. These findings suggest that species converge in strata in mixed-species flocks despite the potential for increased competition and emphasize that species can plastically react to changes in their social environment in numerous ways. Acknowledgment of such plasticity is likely integral to understanding the nuances of heterospecific interactions.</p>
Affiliations of ISGC participants
<p>These are affiliation data of ISGC participants with enrichments from Marion Maisonobe. This dataset is one of the outcomes of the NETCONF research project : <a href="https://netconf-geoscimo.univ-tlse2.fr">https://netconf-geoscimo.univ-tlse2.fr </a></p>
Sex-specific trunk movement coordination in participants with low-back pain and asymptomatic controls
<p>This is the data set and the code used for our publication. </p>
Usability ratings on the MuLiMi platform expressed by Participants
<p>The database contains usability ratings for the MuLiMi platform for the screening of Dyslexia risk in multilingual children, expressed by the participants (children users). Ratings are expressed through an ad-hoc questionnaire with 12 items on a 1-to-5 point scale. NB ratings for question .1 are to be reversed in order to obtain a scale with increasing scores from the negative to the positive pole, like all other questions.</p>
Citizen science at public libraries: Data on librarians and users perceptions of participating in a citizen science project in Catalunya, Spain
<p>As libraries struggle to keep pace with the changing societal landscape, emerging practices such as citizen science (CS) initiatives are being incorporated to reinforce the idea of public libraries as gathering, meeting, and collaboration spaces within the context of shared community and shared learning resources. However, there is little empirical evidence of whether the most open and participatory ways that CS puts forward can converge with and be nurtured by the essence of public libraries. Also, the roles of librarians and users in the ‘next generation public library’ have been under-developed. As the number of CS initiatives at public libraries grows, so does the need to collect evidence on the impact and the capacity of assimilation of CS practices. The data describes librarians and users' perceptions of participating in a citizen science project. Two hands-on activities for librarians of the Barcelona Network of Public Libraries were implemented. One was a training course for 30 librarians from 24 libraries which allowed them to envisage citizen science implementation in each library. The second activity consisted in the co-creation of a citizen social science project. 40 library users, 7 librarians from 3 different cities, and professional scientists, were involved. The data on librarians and users' perception was collected through participant observation, surveys, and a focus group to identify strengths and challenges of implementing citizen science at public libraries. The data covers librarians and users attitudes towards citizen science, their motivations to participate, their perceived ability to implement a citizen science project (as for librarians) or to contribute to science (as for library users), and the participants intention to keep engaged with citizen science, drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Responses to closed-ended survey questions are analyzed at a descriptive level. The qualitative feedback from the focus group and the open-ended survey question on motivations is subjected to a thematic analysis. The data offers interesting insights to identify opportunities and challenges of implementing citizen science at public libraries, contributing to the debate over the public library's mission as local community hub.</p> <p>The dataset is formed by 5 tables:</p> <ol> <li>Librarians_pre.csv: data on librarians profiles, attitudes towards citizen science, expected impact of the project and self-efficacy collected at the beginning of the Citizen Science Lab.</li> <li>Librarians_post.csv: data on librarians profiles, attitudes towards citizen science, perceived impact of the project and self-efficacy collected at the end of the Citizen Science Lab.</li> <li>Users_first_phase.csv: data on users profiles, motivation, attitudes towards the library, confidence to perform scientific tasks and self-efficacy collected at the beginning of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> <li>Users_second_phase.csv: data on users profiles and motivation collected at the middle of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> <li>Users_last_phase.csv: data on users profiles, attitudes towards the library, confidence to perform scientific tasks and perceived impact of the project collected at the end of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Citizen Science Lab Questionnaire (Librarians_pre)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [rol_1] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Director</li> <li>Library technician</li> <li>Support technician</li> <li>Service support</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_1] How long have you been working at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>2 or less</li> <li>3 to 5 years</li> <li>6 to 10 years</li> <li>11 to 20 years</li> <li>more than 20 years</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_1] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [know_1] Have you already heard about citizen science?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [part_1] Have you already participated in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards users engagement</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [att_lib_pre1] Do you believe that library users are able to participate in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [att_lib_pre2] Do you believe that library users will commit to participating in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Expected impacts</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [exp_lib_pre] To what extent do you believe that citizen science may bring positive impacts to your library?</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [se_lib_pre1] Right now, do you feel able to recommend any citizen science project to library users?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [se_lib_pre2] Right now, do you feel able to implement yourself and lead a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Citizen Science Lab Questionnaire (Librarians_post)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [years_2] How long have you been working at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>2 or less</li> <li>3 to 5 years</li> <li>6 to 10 years</li> <li>11 to 20 years</li> <li>more than 20 years</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [back_2] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [sat_1] To what extent does the project meet your initial expectations?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards users engagement</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [att_lib_post1] Do you believe that library users will commit to participating in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [att_lib_post2] What are/could be the potential barriers to users engagement in citizen science?</p> </td> <td> <p>[open]</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Perceived impact</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [imp_lib] What do you believe that citizen science may bring to public libraries and users?</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>a. Knowledge of the scientific process</p> <p>b. New connections among participants </p> <p>c. Fun</p> <p>d. New knowledge of the local environment</p> <p>e. Scientific evidence on a common concern</p> <p>f. Social cohesion</p> <p>g. Positive attitudes towards science</p> <p>h. Willingness to learn</p> <p>i. Critical thinking and self-efficacy</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [se_lib_post1] Right now, do you feel able to recommend any citizen science project to library users?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [se_lib_post2] Right now, do you feel able to implement yourself and lead a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Intention to keep engaged</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [eng_lib] To what extent are you motivated to keep engaged with citizen science?</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Focus group guide (Librarians)</strong></p> <p><strong>Opening questions</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> To start with…. Are you satisfied with the project?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Yes, no, why? Was it fun/interesting/challenging/enriching….</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Do you feel you have learned something new?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> About your library’s environment, users, science and citizen science... Is there anything special that you will take with you after the project?</p> <p><strong>Reflections on the cocreation process</strong></p> <p><strong>3.</strong> At what time during the project have you felt most comfortable?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> For example, has it been easier to lead the activity and/or involve and retain the community? Did you find it entertaining?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> At what time during the project have you felt less at ease?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> What was challenging during the cocreation process?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> To what extent do you feel more capable of implementing and leading a citizen science project in your library right now?</p> <p><strong>Probe: </strong>For example, in the case of both more crowdsourcing and of cocreated projects that actively involve the community</p> <p><strong>Reflections on the perceived impact</strong></p> <p><strong>6. </strong>To what extent does the project meet your initial expectations?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> in line with what you discussed at the beginning of the project, you expected it to promote participation, new connections among participants, improve the library perceptions and stimulate the participants’ critical thinking...Do you think that citizen science may meet these expectations?</p> <p><strong>Reflections on citizen science at public libraries</strong></p> <p><strong>7.</strong> To what extent can citizen science (in its most ‘extreme’ form of participation) be imagined as an activity within the library that promotes more active user participation?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Through for example cocreation, experimentation, and hands-on learning activities...</p> <p><strong>8. </strong>Do you think that the activity has brought new knowledge? What new knowledge has the activity brought from your perspective?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Knowledge of the scientific process, knowledge of the community or new users...</p> <p>9. What could be the opportunities and barriers of introducing citizen science at public libraries? And the barriers?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> Like for example improving the perception of the library, actively involving certain users...What could be the ‘return’ for the community? What impact can citizen science projects have on making the environment more dynamic from libraries?</p> <p><strong>10. </strong>More generally, what could be the ‘added value’ of the introduction of citizen science within the library’s range of activities?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> Is it a fun activity that promotes socialization, for example? Or that allows to generate new knowledge? Or that highlights the library’s social value? Or, also, that may offer new uses and new roles to the library? Can it foster a sense of community with the library as a connector? What other impacts can be generated in your environment?</p> <p><strong>Closing</strong></p> <p><strong>11.</strong> Do you see yourselves the next year, implementing a citizen science project as part of the library’s range of activities? And adopting an existing one?</p> <p><strong>Probe: </strong>Are you motivated to get more involved with citizen science projects? What kind of projects? What level of user involvement do you expect? What barriers do you see to users’ involvement? What benefits and opportunities do you think you can bring to the library?</p> <p><strong>12.</strong> We have now reached the end of the discussion. Anyone want to add anything else?</p> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_first_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_1] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_3] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_2] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user not associated with local associations</li> <li>Library technician</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [back_3] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [part_2] Have you already participated in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Motivations to participate</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [mot_us] What did motivate you to participate in the project?</p> </td> <td> <p>[open]</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards the library</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [att_us_pre1] To what extent do you believe that your library is responsive to the community needs?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [att_us_pre2] To what extent to you believe your library is able to face local challenges based on users' active participation?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Confidence to perform scientific tasks</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [conf_us_pre] To what extent do you feel able to contribute to perform the following scientific tasks:</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 4 [Totally]</p> </td> <td> <p>a. Formulate the research question</p> <p>b. Data collection</p> <p>c. Analysis and interpretation of the results</p> <p>d. Propose concrete actions based on scientific evidence</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [se_us_pre] To what extent do you feel able to positively contribute to the library and your community?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_second_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_3] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_5] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_4] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user or technician not associated with local associations</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_5] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [mot_us2] To what extent are you motivated to carry out the experiment?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_last_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_2] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_4] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_3] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user or technician not associated with local associations</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_4] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [part_3] To how many cocreation sessions have you participated?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>None</li> <li>1</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [sat_2] To what extent are you satisfied with the experiment?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards the library</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [att_us_post] To what extent do you believe that the project has positively changed your perception of the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Confidence to perform scientific tasks</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [conf_us_post] To what extent do you feel able to contribute to perform the following scientific tasks:</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> </td> <td> <p>a. Formulate the research question</p> <p>b. Data collection</p> <p>c. Analysis and interpretation of the results</p> <p>d. Propose concrete actions based on scientific evidence</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Perceived impact</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [imp_us] What do you believe that citizen science may bring to public libraries and users?</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>a. Knowledge of the scientific process</p> <p>b. New connections among participants </p> <p>c. Fun</p> <p>d. New knowledge of the local environment</p> <p>e. Scientific evidence on a common concern</p> <p>f. Social cohesion</p> <p>g. Positive attitudes towards science</p> <p>h. Willingness to learn</p> <p>i. Critical thinking and self-efficacy</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>
FRESH:COM Dynamic Participation in Local Energy Communities with Peer-to-Peer Trading
<p>This repository contains input data used for the case study in 'Dynamic Participation in Local Energy Communities with Peer-to-Peer Trading'</p>
Linear Kinematic Feature detected and tracked in sea-ice deformation simulationed by all models participating in the Sea Ice Rheology Experiment and from RGPS
<p>Linear Kinematic Features (LKFs) detected and tracked in sea-ice deformation fields simulated by sea-ice models participating in the Sea Ice Rheology Experiment (SIREx), a model intercomparison project of the Forum of Arctic Modeling and Observational Synthesis (FAMOS). These data are the basis of the feature-based evaluation of sea-ice deformation in Hutter et al., Sea Ice Rheology Experiment (SIREx), Part II: Evaluating linear kinematic features in high-resolution sea-ice simulations, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (2022). This paper also provides further details on the parameters of the LKF extraction.</p> <p>The LKF data sets in this archive are stored in a csv-files for each year (1997 and/or 2008), which use semi-colons as delimiters. Each row corresponds to a pixel that was identified as LKF and the following information for this pixels is stored: Start Year, Start Month, Start Day, End Year, End Month, End Day, LKF No., Parent LKF No., lon, lat, ind_x, ind_y, divergence rate, shear rate. All pixels belonging to the same LKF have the same LKF number. Tracked LKFs are linked by the parent LKF number, where "0" denotes LKFs that newly formed. Detailed information on all variables is provided in the additional notes.</p>
The Passenger Experience of Mixed Reality Virtual Display Layouts in Airplane Environments - Participants Questionnaire
<p>Dataset for questionnaire data from the paper "<strong>The Passenger Experience of Mixed Reality Virtual Display Layouts in Airplane Environments</strong>" published at ISMAR 2021</p>
CROSSBOW HLU2-UC6-TC1 Economical benefit of mFRR market participation with 5% of energy saved for upward regulation
<p>The energy market participation algorithm of RES-CC allows for participating in DA/ID markets and balancing markets. The process uses the energy generation forecasting of the plants to generate the energy bids for the DA/ID market. With regards to the mFRR market, the whole amount of curtailable energy is offered for downward regulation. Additionally, the process is configurable so that it can save a given amount of the potential generation, do not offering this energy in the DA/ID market but offering it for upward regulation in the mFRR. This upward regulation can only be done with Renewables by means of not selling part of the forecasted energy. This is a risk, as the upward regulation energy might not be requested by the operator, and thus the profit for the generation will be lost.</p> <p>This dataset contains the results of the market participation algorithm running for a week, configured for offering 5% of the forecasted energy for upward regulation.</p> <p>Dataset contains the results for the CROSSBOW portfolios of Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece.</p> <p>For each country, hour by hour, the following information is provided:</p> <ul> <li>Energy sold in IDM</li> <li>Forecasted generation</li> <li>Energy sold mFRR down</li> <li>Energy sold mFRR up</li> <li>Energy price mFRR down</li> <li>Energy price mFRR up</li> <li>Energy price in IDM</li> <li>Energy looses (saved and not sold in mFRR up)</li> </ul>
CROSSBOW HLU2-UC6-TC1 Economical benefit of mFRR market participation with 20% of energy saved for upward regulation
<p>The energy market participation algorithm of RES-CC allows for participating in DA/ID markets and balancing markets. The process uses the energy generation forecasting of the plants to generate the energy bids for the DA/ID market. With regards to the mFRR market, the whole amount of curtailable energy is offered for downward regulation. Additionally, the process is configurable so that it can save a given amount of the potential generation, do not offering this energy in the DA/ID market but offering it for upward regulation in the mFRR. This upward regulation can only be done with Renewables by means of not selling part of the forecasted energy. This is a risk, as the upward regulation energy might not be requested by the operator, and thus the profit for the generation will be lost.</p> <p>This dataset contains the results of the market participation algorithm running for a week, configured for offering 20% of the forecasted energy for upward regulation.</p> <p>Dataset contains the results for the CROSSBOW portfolios of Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece.</p> <p>For each country, hour by hour, the following information is provided:</p> <ul> <li>Energy sold in IDM</li> <li>Forecasted generation</li> <li>Energy sold mFRR down</li> <li>Energy sold mFRR up</li> <li>Energy price mFRR down</li> <li>Energy price mFRR up</li> <li>Energy price in IDM</li> <li>Energy looses (saved and not sold in mFRR up)</li> </ul>
Archive of the analysis results of the microtremor data obtained from a seismic array with a radius of 0.58 m distributed to the participants of the blind prediction experiments for the ESG6 symposium
<p>This is a supplemental material of the paper "Array-size dependency of the upper limit wavelength normalized by array radius for the standard spatial autocorrelation method" by Ikuo Cho, published in Earth, Planets and Space. It consists of the analysis results of the microtremor data observed using a seismic array with a radius of 0.58 m, which were distributed to the participants of the blind prediction experiments in ESG6. It involves all analysis results and script files to draw Figure 1 of the paper. See the "Availability of data and materials" section of the paper to download the original observed data and analysis code. See the main text of the paper for the details of the analysis.</p>
Results from surveys to trainees participating into enriched sessions with practitioners
<p><strong>BACKGROUND:</strong></p> <p>The presented data was obtained during the implementation of the European project, DISCOVERY LEARNING. DISCOVERY LEARNING aims at experimenting towards a participatory, empowered and evolutionary work-based learning in PhD programmes for effectively training <strong>transferable skills</strong> related to Open Science and Innovation, achieving replicable and sustainable results over time. The ultimate goal was to establish a set of<strong> knowledge performance indicators (KPIs) about what works in doctoral education for training a set of transferable skills. </strong>If you want to get more information on the project, please click here:<strong> <a href="https://discoverylearning.eu/">https://discoverylearning.eu/</a> </strong></p> <p>At the level of <strong>pedagogical model</strong>, the chosen paradigm was the so-called <strong>Personalized Learning, </strong>which adjusts not only to the characteristics and needs of each student (adapting the pace and methodology), but also takes into account their particular preferences and interests (so that the student influences and actively participates in the definition of its objectives and in the selection of contents, as well as in the ways of demonstrating learning) (Looi et al., 2009).</p> <p>Within this double focus into transferable skills (related to open science and innovation) and the implementation of personalized learning mechanisms, the main experimental areas during the project were the following:</p> <ol> <li>Involving practitioners</li> <li>Making use of gamification</li> <li>Implementing real work-based learning</li> </ol> <p>On the basis of the above and as the result of a joint reflection process amongst partners, DISCOVERY LEARNING has formulated the following hypothesis:</p> <p><em>-If specific / punctual enriched activities by practitioners are inserted within the training programme, then:</em></p> <ul> <li><em>The level of engagement and performance improves significantly </em></li> <li><em> Institutions can train more students in transferable skills related to open science and innovation. </em></li> </ul> <p>In order to test and verify the above hypothesis, it has been decided to carry out a series of experimentation protocols (online and off-line trainings on a number of science & technology trends related to transferable skills) with early-stage researchers that can measure their applicability and reproducibility of our hypothesis over time. If you want to know more about the project results, please click here: <a href="https://discoverylearning.eu/results/traininglearning-options/dl-resources">https://discoverylearning.eu/results/traininglearning-options/dl-resources</a></p> <p><strong>METHODS:</strong></p> <p>We have designed an ad-hoc survey to gather relevant information from the participants of these experimentation protocols. These surveys will happen before and after the trainings.</p> <p>The following section show the surveys being used presently within the project to ask trainees around the aforementioned hypothesis. This survey has been refined in relation to the lessons learnt during stage 1 of the project’ experimentation strategy. For launching them, a professional software that allows optimising the design and User Experience, as well as managing the data gathered, was being used (<a href="https://app.surveyanyplace.com/">https://app.surveyanyplace.com/</a>)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>• STATISTICAL INFORMATION GATHERED (general information):</strong></p> <p><strong>-Title: </strong>Surveys to trainees participating into enriched sessions with practitioners</p> <p><strong>-Method:</strong> Survey questions will incorporate Likert scale questions, multiple choice and free text answers.</p> <p><strong>-General information</strong>: Gender (optional), country, age range, discipline, internet connectivity and type and ownership of the device being used, language, institution.</p> <p><strong>-Information about the training in which the person is to participate / has participated:</strong></p> <p>Title and date. Unless desired different by the participant, the survey is anonymous.</p> <p><strong>-Period of surveying</strong>: 22.10.2021-19.03.2022</p> <p><strong>-Responsible person</strong>: Eva García Muntión (RTDI)</p> <p><strong><em>Terms of use:</em></strong> These data are provided "as is", without any warranties of any kind. The data are provided under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.</p> <p><strong><em>Funding:</em></strong><em> This project has received funding from the Research and Innovation framework Horizon 2020 of the European Union under grant agreement nº 101006452.</em></p> <p><br> </p>
Assessing the impacts of conservation volunteering on participant wellbeing: a review protocol
<p>Original search titles for the review : </p> <p>Assessing the impacts of conservation volunteering on participant wellbeing:</p> <p>a review protocol</p>
Extracted opinions from the French National Great Debate (Grand Débat National) about transport and socio-economic description of municipalities participating to the debate
<p>This data set contains :</p> <p>- motifs_with_geom.json : extracted propositions from the answers to the online public consultation related to the French National Great Debate (Grand Débat National) which took place in 2019. The propositions consist of automatically extracted patterns. The propositions are related to transport. Extracted propositions are also georeferenced by postal codes and associated coordinates (WGS 84).</p> <p>- communes_with_all_data.geojson : socio-economic features which describes municipalities in France (mainland + overseas territories). These data are also georeferenced by postal codes and associated coordinates (WGS 84). data_geo.zip are the source files to build this file. The features are described in data_cadrage_meta.csv</p> <p>- motifsxcommunes_without_geom.csv : joined file of extracted propositions and socio-economic features of municipalities, without coordinates. These data are used to performed statistic analysis.</p> <p>- transportonto4.owl : ontology describing transport in French, used to extract propositions related to transport.</p>
Brain functional connectivity data in anesthetized participants and patients with neuropathological or psychiatric diagnoses
<p>Five fMRI datasets were collected from independent research sites including: propofol deep sedation (PDS; drug effect site concentration= ~2.4 μg/ml) in Dataset-1, propofol general anesthesia (PGA; drug effect site concentration= 4.0 μg/ml) in Dataset-2, ketamine anesthesia (KA) in Dataset-3, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) in Dataset-4, and schizophrenia (SCHZ), bipolar disorder (BD), and attentional deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Dataset-5. Following fMRI data preprocessing, the fMRI time courses were extracted from 400 cortical areas according to a well-established brain parcellation scheme (Schaefer's 400 ROIs). A connectivity matrix was then calculated using Pearson correlation resulting in a 400x400 connectivity matrix for each participant and each condition.</p>
EUXCEL Entrepreneurship Programme - Participant Survey 2015 - Part 1
<p>The survey was conducted in the context of the EUXCEL European wide ICT entrepreneurship initiative (Grant agreement 644801) which supports aspiring young tech entrepreneurs interested in co-founding new international information, communication and technology (ICT) start-ups through an initial, week long start-up event wherein team members meet and interact, followed by a 12 week virtual incubation phase. Participants were drawn from 25 different countries, and formed multi-national teams, consisting of at least 3 nationalities in each team.</p> <p> </p> <p>With a view to exploring the internal team dynamics which underpin the performance of new venture teams (NVTs) in this context, the survey objectives included:</p> <ul> <li>Exploring the relative contribution of flexibility, market awareness, analytical skill, self-efficacy and creativity to team performance</li> <li>Exploring the impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on team performance</li> <li>Exploring the impact of social astuteness on team performance</li> <li>Exploring the impact of fear of failure in this context</li> </ul> <p>This survey received 229 responses with a male to female ratio of 70:30. The average age of respondents was 25.3.</p> <p> </p>
Data from: Residues neighboring an SH3-binding motif participate in determining affinity and specificity in vivo
<p>In signaling networks, many protein-protein interactions are mediated by modular domains that bind short linear motifs. The motifs' sequences modulate many factors, among them affinity and specificity, or the ability to bind strongly and to bind the appropriate partners. Previous studies have proposed a trade-off between affinity and specificity, suggesting that motifs with high affinity are less capable of differentiating between domains with similar sequences and structures. Using Deep Mutational Scanning to create a mutant library of a well characterized binding motif, and protein complementation assays to measure protein-protein interactions, we tested this trade-off in vivo for the first time. We measured the binding strength and specificity of a library of mutants of a binding motif on the MAP kinase kinase Pbs2, which binds the SH3 domain of the osmosensor protein Sho1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We find that many mutations in the region surrounding the binding motif modify binding strength, but that few mutations have a strong impact on specificity. Moreover, we find no systematic relationship between affinity and specificity as measured in vivo. Interestingly, all Pbs2 mutations which increase affinity or specificity are situated outside of the Pbs2 residues that interact with the canonical SH3-binding pocket, suggesting that other surfaces on Sho1 contribute to binding. We use predicted structures to propose a model of binding which involves residues neighboring the core Pbs2 motif binding outside of the canonical SH3-binding pocket, allowing affinity and specificity to be determined by a broader range of sequences than what has previously been considered.</p>
Figure 1. Heat map indicating the cumulative percent seed shatter across the participating states for a in Seed-shattering phenology at soybean harvest of economically important weeds in multiple regions of the United States. Part 1: Broadleaf species
Figure 1. Heat map indicating the cumulative percent seed shatter across the participating states for a window starting from soybean physiological maturity to 4 wk past maturity in 2016 and 2017. States were included in these maps only if they conducted sampling during the week indicated (e.g., In 2017, Arkansas sampled on October 2, October 18, and November 3, none of which are within ±3 d of the October 10 maturity date or maturity þ2 wk on October 24 in the state that year. Hence only data from maturity þ3 wk are for Arkansas for 2017.)
Figure 1. Heat map indicating the cumulative percent seed shatter across the participating states for a in Seed-shattering phenology at soybean harvest of economically important weeds in multiple regions of the United States. Part 2: Grass species
Figure 1. Heat map indicating the cumulative percent seed shatter across the participating states for a window starting from soybean physiological maturity to 4 wk past physiological maturity in 2016 and 2017. States were included in these maps only if they conducted sampling during the week indicated. (e.g., In 2017, Arkansas sampled on October 2, October 18, and November 3, none of which are within ±3 d of the October 10 maturity date or maturity +2 wk on October 24 in the state that year. Hence only data from maturity +3 wk are for Arkansas for 2017.)
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.