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.
1,234
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
1,234 results for “questionnaire”
Marginalized language communities questionnaire: Summary
<p>This dataset contains the anonymized results of a questionnaire for members of marginalized language communities that aims to study their possibilities of access to recordings in their languages as well as connectivity and communication habits. A slightly different version has been designed for outsider researchers who are in contact with communities. The dataset contains the answers to the questionnaire (in English, Spanish, Russian) by December 27th 2021. The results are arranged in 31 columns, together with a brief summary for each below row 34. Note that row 26 (in grey) is discarded as invalid for our purposes and not included in the summary.</p>
Innovative forest products in the circular bioeconomy: questionnaire for semi-structured interview
<p>This upload includes the questionnaire for semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, as part of a case study done for the BioMonitor project. The data collected during the interviews are not publicly available as the dataset contains sensitive information of the organizations involved in the study.<br> The interview participants work in EU-based organizations involved in the development and manufacture of forest products, especially of the following categories: construction materials, textiles, chemicals, bioplastics, and wood-based composites.</p> <p> <br> <strong>About BioMonitor</strong><br> BioMonitor is an EU-funded project (biomonitor.eu) that aims to establish a sustainable and robust framework that different stakeholders can use to monitor and measure the bioeconomy and its various impacts in relation to the EU and its Member States. The BioMonitor consortium is composed of a team of universities, statistical and standardisation institutes as well as consultancies and data modelling experts.</p> <p><em>This work was supported by the BioMonitor project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement N° 773297.</em></p>
Questionnaire for surveys on Urban Green Space use and survey raw data for Brussels (Belgium), Luxembourg-city (Luxembourg) and Rouen (France)
<p>The repository contains the xml files of survey questionnaires on the use of urban green spaces. All survey files are translated into three languages (English, French and German).</p> <p>At the time of this publication, these questionnaires have already been used for conducting face-to-face surveys in 2016 in Brussels (Belgium), in 2017 in Luxembourg-city (Luxembourg) and in 2017 in Rouen (France).</p> <p>The results of these surveys are provided in raw data format (csv files), after anonymisation (home and workplace locations have been removed).</p> <p>Please feel free to contact us for any supplementary info.</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>
Overview of PASTA Questionnaires: Physical Activity through Sustainable Transport Approaches (PASTA): protocol for a multi-centre, longitudinal study
<p>Overview of questionnaires used in the PASTA project (Physical Activity through Sustainable Transport Approaches (PASTA))</p> <p>English version</p>
Mean, standard deviation, and percentiles of the schema and domain scores of the German version of the Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3) in a German opportunity sample (n=1,150)
<p>Mean, standard deviation, and percentiles of the schema and domain scores of the German version of the Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3) in a German opportunity sample (n=1,150). Details are reported in: Kriston L, Schäfer J, Jacob GA, Härter M, Hölzel LP. Reliability and validity of the German version of the Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). <em>Eur J Psychol Assess</em> 2013; 29: 205-212.</p> <p>IMPORTANT: This is an opportunity sample that is not representative of any well-defined population. Accordingly, the values should not be used as reference or norm values for the German version of the YSQ-S3.</p>
Mittelwert, Standardabweichung und Perzentile der Schema- und Domänen-Scores der deutschen Version des Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3) in einer deutschen Gelegenheitsstichprobe (n=1150)
<p>Mittelwert, Standardabweichung und Perzentile der Schema- und Domänen-Scores der deutschen Version des Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3) in einer deutschen Gelegenheitsstichprobe (n=1150). Details sind beschrieben in: Kriston L, Schäfer J, Jacob GA, Härter M, Hölzel LP. Reliability and validity of the German version of the Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). <em>Eur J Psychol Assess</em> 2013; 29: 205-212.</p> <p>WICHTIG: Es handelt sich um eine Gelegenheitsstichprobe, die für keine gut definierbare Population repräsentativ ist. Dementsprechend sollten die Werte nicht als Referenz- oder Normwerte für die deutsche Version des YSQ-S3 verwendet werden.</p>
Survey questionnaire and results on Structural Barriers to Investment in Energy Efficiency Policies in the Private Rented Sector
<p>The online survey was designed and conducted in the framework of the EU H2020 project ENPOR ("Actions to Mitigate Energy Poverty in the Private Rented Sector). The aim of the survey was to receive statistically sound insights on structural factors that affect the implementation of energy efficiency policies for the alleviation of energy poverty in the European Private Rented Sector. We developed it as an explorative, semi-quantitative, self-completion online questionnaire, using the online tool “EUSurvey”. We performed the online survey among different stakeholders from academia, policy, NGO’s, landlords and tenant associations, etc.</p>
Survey questionnaire and results on Pay-for-Performance (P4P) schemes for energy efficiency measures
<p>The online survey was designed and conducted in the framework of the EU H2020 SENSEI project. The aim of the survey was to identify stakeholders’ perceptions on how P4P programmes could be integrated into the existing EU regulatory and market framework. We developed a semi-quantitative, self-completion online questionnaire, using the online tool “Alchemer”. The online survey collects input from different experts from the field of academia, consultancies, policymaking, and the energy industry. </p> <p>The questionnaire is used by <em>Tzani</em> <em>et al </em>(2022) to investigate how policy developments and adjustments in the EU can facilitate the design of performance-based energy efficiency programmes. The study combines a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats framework with an Analytical Hierarchy Process method and a Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths matrix for the analysis of different stakeholder perceptions and the formulation of policy strategies.</p> <p>If you use this questionnaire in an academic publication, please cite the corresponding article:</p> <p><em>Tzani, D., Exintaveloni, D.S., Stavrakas, V., Flamos, A. </em><em>Devising policy strategies for the deployment of energy efficiency Pay-for-Performance programmes in the European Union</em><em>. </em></p>
Using a Hybrid Kano-Importance Questionnaire in the Acquisition of Data Related to Students' Expectations from Online Educational Platforms
<p>This dataset contains the data collected for the assessment of the quality attributes of a new online educational platform. The questionnaire used for data collection the Kano methodology and was designed as a hybrid Kano-importance questionnaire. The purpose of this data collection consists of the analysis of the students’ expectations regarding the features proposed for a new online educational platform. This analysis facilitates the identification of student needs during times of COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic times, while a transition to an online educational system was used throughout the world. </p>
Software product quality evaluation questionnaire for IoT LCDP&MDE
<p>This dataset contains the questionnaire used to assess the quality of LCDP and MDE tools in line with the ISO/IEC 25010:2011 product quality standard.</p>
raw behavioral data, raw questionnaire data, and raw neuroimaging data for a genuine-and-pretended disgust task
<p>Raw behavioral data, raw questionnaire data, and raw neuroimaging data for a genuine-and-pretended disgust task. Particularly, a document indicating all parameters used in the datasets and file names is attached as well.</p>
Secondary Data: Measuring Person-centred Care in German Nursing Homes – Exploring Construct Validity of the Dementia Policy Questionnaire using Adjusted Multiple Correspondence Analysis
<p>This is the secondary data set and R-Code of R statistical software (version 4.0.4) to explore construct validity of the German Dementia Policy Questionnaire using Adjusted Multiple Correspondence Analysis.</p>
EFAICTS final evaluations VanderLaan questionnaires synthesis
<p>This excel file summarizes the Van-der-Laan questionnaires of the pilots who participated to the final evaluations of the EFAICTS project.</p>
ARIADNEplus questionnaire responses for metadata aggregation
<p>Anonymized responses to the ARIADNEplus questionnaire to gather information for the aggregation of metadata about archaelogical resources to be included in the ARIADNEplus Knowledge Base and portal (https://portal.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/).</p> <p>The csv includes only the plain responses as provided by 31 archaelogical content providers until 18 October 2021. </p> <p>The excel file includes also two additional sheets where the responses about the formats and the aggregation update schedule have been normalised.</p> <p>The responses are discussed in deliverable <a href="../doi/10.5281/zenodo.7506765">D12.4 "Final report on data integration"</a>.</p>
Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta ja kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla / Expert Questionnaire Results Regarding Biodiversity of Urban Biotopes and an Urban Biotope Map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland
<p>(in English below)</p> <p><strong>ASIANTUNTIJAKYSELY KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIEN MONIMUOTOISUUDESTA JA KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA SUOMEN PÄÄKAUPUNKISEUDULLA</strong></p> <p><strong>Tausta ja tavoitteet</strong></p> <p>Luonnonsuojelu on keskittynyt perinteisesti Suomessa tiettyihin lajeihin ja luontotyyppeihin, mikä ei välttämättä kuvaa erilaisten kaupunkiympäristöjen ekologisia arvoja kattavasti. Lisäksi tulisi huomioida eliöyhteisöjä, jotka turvaavat kestävän ja monimuotoisen ekosysteemien toiminnallisuuden.</p> <p>Tämän asiantuntijakyselyn tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten erilaiset kaupunkibiotoopit tukevat erilaisia ekologisten yhteisöjen monimuotoisuutta kuvaavia tekijöitä eri eliöryhmillä. Nämä <em>monimuotoisuuden laatutekijät</em> kuvaavat yhdessä biotooppien roolia kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuudessa, toiminnallisuudessa ja täten epäsuorasti myös mm. ekosysteemipalvelujen tarjoamisessa. Kyselyn tuloksia voidaan hyödyntää ekologisten arvojen turvaamiseksi paremmin osana kaupunkisuunnittelua tai kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuuden kattavan turvaamisen perustana. Kysely keskittyi pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) biotooppeihin. Lisäksi asiantuntijat antoivat arvionsa biotooppipisteytyksen sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa.</p> <p>Kysely on kuvattu Terra-lehdessä (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022) sekä Jalkanen ym. (2020).</p> <p><strong>Menetelmät</strong></p> <p><em>Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys</em></p> <p>Aineisto kerättiin internetkyselyllä 5.10.-21.11.2016 välisenä aikana. Kysely lähetettiin 38 paikalliselle lajiasiantuntijalle (Luonnontieteellisessä keskusmuseossa, Helsingin yliopistossa, Suomen ympäristökeskuksessa, ympäristökonsulttiyrityksissä ja luontojärjestöissä), joista 24 osallistui kyselyyn.</p> <p>Mukana olleet asiantuntijat (suluissa heidän lajiryhmänsä):</p> <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Linnut)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Lepakot)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Perhoset)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Perhoset)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Käävät)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Linnut)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Käävät)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Perhoset)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Linnut)</li> </ul> <p>Asiantuntijat pisteyttivät kyselyssä 68 biotooppia sen mukaan, kuinka ne tukevat heidän lajiryhmiensä eri ominaisuustekijöitä. Jokainen biotooppi arvioitiin erikseen kunkin tekijän näkökulmasta. Pisteet annettiin 5-portaisella asteikolla (0–4; 0 alin). Asiantuntijoita ohjeistettiin miettimäään koko vuodenaikaiskiertoa (arvioimaan biotooppien merkitystä siis myös esim. talvehtimisen kannalta). Kysely perustui Vierikon ym. (2014) biotooppiluokitteluun seuraavin muutoksin:</p> <ul> <li>Metsäbiotoopit jaettiin kahteen ikäluokkaan (30–100-vuotiaat ja yli 100-vuotiaat metsät)</li> <li>Piha-alueet jaettiin päällystettyihin ja maavaraisiin</li> <li>Tiiviiden pientaloalueiden ja townhouse-alueiden pihat lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> <li>Kalliolaet, -rinteet ja -seinämät sekä kivikot yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (paljaat kalliopinnat)</li> <li>Uimarannat, kanaalit ja rantaterassit yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (rakennetut rannat)</li> <li>Kiviseinät ja lintuluodot poistettiin</li> <li>Viherseinät lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> </ul> <p>Biotooppien merkitystä kysyttiin seuraavissa eliöyhteisöjen monimuotoisuuden laatua kuvaavissa kategorioissa:</p> <ol> <li>Lajirikkaus</li> <li>Vaatelias lajisto</li> <li>Biomassa</li> <li>Runsaus</li> <li>Tasaisuus</li> <li>Uniikkius</li> <li>Seudullinen edustavuus</li> <li>Herkkyys ihmissyntyisiä häiriöitä kohtaan</li> <li>Kytkeytyvyys</li> </ol> <p>Asiantuntijat arvioivat lisäksi omien vastaustensa luotettavuutta, erikseen jokaisen tekijän kohdalla. Tässä aineistossa biotooppien pisteet on painotettu nousevan painokertoimen mukaan, jotta luotettavat vastaukset korostuvat epäluotettavia voimakkaammin. Luotettavuuskertoimet ovat 0, 1, 2, 4 ja 8, mitkä tarkoittavat “erittäin epäluotettavia”, “epäluotettavia”, “jonkin verran epäluotettavia”, ”melko luotettavia” ja ”erittäin luotettavia” vastauksia.</p> <p> <em>Biotooppipisteiden sovellettavuus muualla Suomessa</em></p> <p>Kyselyn jälkeen asiantuntijat arvioivat työpajassa, kuinka hyvin heidän vastauksiaan voi soveltaa muissa suomalaisissa kaupungeissa. Työpaja pidettiin 29.11.2016. Tarkka kysymyksenasettelu oli:</p> <p><em>Tämä kysely on laadittu Etelä-Suomen ja erityisesti pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) näkökulmasta. Kuinka hyvin kyselyn tulokset kuvaavat eliöryhmäsi lajistoa muiden Suomen maakuntien kaupungeissa? Vastaa asteikolla 0–10 (0: tämän kyselyn tuloksia ei voi soveltaa lainkaan ko. maakunnan kaupunkeihin, 10: kyselyn tulokset soveltuvat erittäin hyvin ko. maakunnan kaupunkiluontoon). Vastaa myös, kuinka luotettavina vastauksiasi voidaan pitää asteikolla 0-3 (0: hyvin epäluotettavina, 3: hyvin luotettavina). <strong>Vastaa oman eliöryhmäsi näkökulmasta.</strong></em></p> <p>Tässä aineistossa vastaukset näytetään alkuperäisinä, eli luotettavia vastauksia ei korosteta erikseen kuten biotooppipisteytyksessä.</p> <p><strong>Aineistot:</strong></p> <p>Aineistot ovat suomeksi (etuliite ”FIN”) ja englanniksi (”ENG”). Aineisto sisältää:</p> <ul> <li>Monimuotoisuuden laatutekijöiden luonnehdinnat ja pisteytysohjeet (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien luonnehdinnat (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys taulukkona (.xlsx)</li> <li>Taulukko vastausten sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa (.xlsx)</li> </ul> <p>Taulukkotiedostoissa monimuotoisuuden laatutekijän tai eliöryhmän perässä oleva numero viittaa asiantuntijaan (esim. lintuja koskevissa sarakkeissa ”Lajirikkaus 1” ja ”Vaateliaat lajit 1” viittaavat saman lintuasiantuntijan vastauksiin). Asiantuntijoiden vastaukset on listattu satunnaisjärjestyksessä. Kaikki asiantuntijat ovat suostuneet heidän vastaustensa ja nimiensä julkaisemiseen kirjallisesti.</p> <p><strong>KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA</strong></p> <p>Kansiossa "FIN_Kaupunkibiotooppikartta" on rasterimuotoinen kartta pääkaupunkiseudun kaupunkibiotoopeista paikkatietomuodossa. Kartta on luotu 2021 eri paikkatietolähteistä (ks. Jalkanen ym. 2020). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta mahdollistaa esimerkiksi monimuotoisuusarvojen tarkastelun pääkaupunkiseudulla yhdessä asiantuntijakyselyn tulosten kanssa. HUOM! Karttaa ei ole tarkoitettu sellaisenaan suunnittelukäyttöön. Minkäänlaisia takuita tulosten oikeellisuudesta, virheettömyydestä tai käytettävyydestä ei myönnetä.</p> <p>Kansiossa on seuraavat tiedostot:</p> <ul> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartta (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan soluarvojen selitykset (.xlsx). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta käsittää 53 biotooppia/maanpeiteluokkaa, eli kaikkia asiantuntijakyselyn biotooppeja ei ole pystytty koostamaan kartalle.</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan koostamisen ja lähtöaineistojen kuvaus (.pdf)</li> </ul> <p><strong>Kiitokset: </strong>Kiitämme Silviya Korpiloa, Susanna Lehvävirtaa ja Stephen Venniä avusta englanninnosten kanssa. </p> <p><strong>Viittausohje:</strong> Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta sekä kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla [Aineisto] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190</p> <p>Aineistoon tulee viitata käytettäessä.</p> <p><strong>Viitteet: </strong></p> <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi. <em>Terra</em> 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. <em>Urban Forestry & Urban Greening</em> 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Niemelä, J., Salminen, J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Helsingin kestävä viherrakenne –Miten turvata kestävä viherrakenne ja kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuus tiivistyvässä kaupunkirakenteessa. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksiä 2014:27. Helsinki. 132 s.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>EXPERT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS REGARDING BIODIVERSITY OF URBAN BIOTOPES AND AN URBAN BIOTOPE MAP IN HELSINKI METROPOLITAN AREA, FINLAND</strong></p> <p><strong>Background and aim:</strong></p> <p>Finnish biodiversity conservation has traditionally focused on certain species and biotopes, which does not necessarily describe urban areas’ ecological values in a comprehensive manner. In addition, focus should be put on ecological communities that enable resilient and diverse ecosystem functioning.</p> <p>The aim of this questionnaire was to determine how different urban biotopes support different biodiversity quality attributes of ecological communities of different higher taxonomic groups. Together these attributes describe biotopes’ support for sustainable urban ecosystem functioning and, thus, indirectly for ecosystem services provisioning. The results can be used to better preserve ecological values in urban planning and as a basis for comprehensive urban biodiversity conservation. The questionnaire focused on biotopes found in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA; municipal cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, and Kauniainen), Southern Finland. In addition, the applicability of the scoring elsewhere in Finnish cities was evaluated.</p> <p>The questionnaire is described in Terra (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022; in Finnish with English abstract) and in Jalkanen et al. (2020).</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong></p> <p><em>Scoring of urban biotopes</em></p> <p>The data was collected using an online questionnaire during 5.10.-21.11.2016. It was sent to 38 local taxonomic experts (from Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Finnish Environment Institute, environmental consultant firms, and local environmental NGOs), out of which 24 replied.</p> <p>Experts who participated were (their taxon):</p> <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Birds)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Bats)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Butterflies)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Butterflies)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Bats)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Vascular plants)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Beetles)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Beetles)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Polypores)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Vascular Plants)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Birds)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Polypores)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Beetles)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Butterflies)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Bats)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Birds)</li> </ul> <p>In the questionnaire, the experts scored 68 local urban biotopes in terms of how well they support different biodiversity attributes of their taxonomic group. Each biotope was scored separately for every attribute. Scores were given on a 5-rank scale (0–4; 0 being the lowest). Experts were advised to consider all seasons (e.g., to consider the importance of the biotope also for wintering). We used the biotope classification from the expert questionnaire by Vierikko et al. (2014) with the following modifications:</p> <ul> <li>Forest biotopes were further divided into two age classes (30-100 y. and over 100 y.)</li> <li>Yards were further divided into sealed and bare yards</li> <li>Densely-built residential gardens & townhouse gardens were added as a new biotope</li> <li>Outcrops, ledges, and rocky grounds were combined to one biotope (bare rocks)</li> <li>Beaches, canals, and terraced embankments were combined to one biotope (artificial shores)</li> <li>Stone walls and bird-colonized islets were excluded</li> <li>Green walls were added as a new biotope</li> </ul> <p>The relevance of biotopes was evaluated for the following Biodiversity Quality attributes that describe or relate to the diversity of urban ecological communities:</p> <ol> <li>Species richness</li> <li>Habitat specialist species</li> <li>Biomass</li> <li>Abundance</li> <li>Evenness</li> <li>Uniqueness</li> <li>Regional representativeness</li> <li>Sensitivity towards anthropogenic disturbance</li> <li>Connectivity</li> </ol> <p>In addition, experts gave overall self-evaluated confidence rates for their answers concerning each attribute. In the data, biotopes’ scores are weighted by an increasing confidence coefficient in order to emphasize confident answers over non-confident ones. Confidence coefficients are 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 that refer to ‘very unconfident’, ‘unconfident’, ‘somewhat unconfident’, ‘somewhat confident’, and ‘very confident’ answers, respectively.</p> <p><em>Applicability of the urban biotope scores elsewhere in Finland</em></p> <p>After the questionnaire, experts assessed how applicable their answers are elsewhere in Finland. This task was done in an expert workshop on 29.11.2016. The exact question, given to the experts, was:</p> <p><em>This questionnaire is designed from Southern Finnish, and especially from the Helsinki Metropolitan area (cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) perspective. How well do the questionnaire results describe the species assemblages of your taxon found in cities in other Finnish provinces? Answer on a scale of 0-10 (0: the results of this questionnaire are completely inapplicable to the cities in the given province, 10: the results of the questionnaire apply very well to the urban nature of the given province). Also evaluate the confidence of your answers at the scale of 0-3 (0: very unconfident, 3: very confident). <strong>Answer from the point of view of your own taxon.</strong></em></p> <p>In the data, the expert answers are reported as they were given, i.e., confident answers are not emphasized over non-confident ones like with biotope scores.</p> <p><strong>Data:</strong></p> <p>Data is provided in Finnish (files starting with ‘FIN’) and in English (‘ENG’). This data set includes:</p> <ul> <li>Biodiversity Quality attribute descriptions and scoring instructions (.pdf)</li> <li>Urban biotope descriptions (.pdf)</li> <li>Table of urban biotope scores (.xlsx)</li> <li>Table of the applicability of biotope scores elsewhere in Finland (.xlsx)</li> </ul> <p>In the tables, the Arabic number after the attribute or taxon name refers to the corresponding expert (i.e., under birds (‘Richness 1’ and ‘Specialist species 1’ refer to the answers of the same bird expert). Experts’ answers are listed in random order. All experts have agreed on publication of their answers and names using written informed consent.</p> <p><strong>URBAN BIOTOPE MAP</strong></p> <p>The folder ’ENG_UrbanBiotopeMap’ includes a raster-type GIS layer of urban biotopes in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. The map has been compiled from several GIS sources (see Jalkanen et al. 2020). The urban biotope map allows for example spatial analyses of biodiversity values together with the expert questionnaire results. OBS! The map is not meant for planning purposes. No warrant about the correctness, flawlessness, or feasibility of the results is given.</p> <p>The folder includes the following files:</p> <ul> <li>The urban biotope map (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>The explanation of the cell values of the urban biotope map (.xlsx). The urban biotope map comprises of 53 different biotopes/land cover types, i.e., every biotope asked in the questionnaire are not found in the map.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Acknowledgements:</strong> We thank Silviya Korpilo, Susanna Lehvävirta, and Stephen Venn for help with the English translations.</p> <p><strong>How to cite: </strong>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Expert questionnaire results regarding biodiversity of urban biotopes and an urban biotope map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland [Data set] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190</p> <p>Data should be properly cited when used.</p> <p><strong>References:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi (Biodiversity in urban green spaces: Expert questionnaire about urban Biodiversity Quality to support urban planning) . <em>Terra</em> 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163 [In Finnish with English abstract.]</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. <em>Urban Forestry & Urban Greening</em> 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Salminen, J., Niemelä J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Sustainable green infrastructure of Helsinki – urban ecological research report and recommendations for the Helsinki master plan 2050. Strategic Planning Office of the City Planning Department of the City of Helsinki. Research report. [In Finnish with English abstract.] Available in: <a href="https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf">https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf</a> (Cited 16.1.2018). 132 pp.</li> </ul> <p> </p>
Dataset of answers to the Questionnaire "Climate changes, migrations, security: the role of Municipalities"
<p>Results of a statistical questionnaire addressed to Sardinian Mayors in order to understand the Local Authorities' position with regard to migration flows, security and their nexus with climate change.</p>
CATCH-EyoU: Processes in Youth's Construction of Active EU Citizenship: Cross-national Wave 1 Questionnaires: Italy, Sweden, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Czech Republic, UK, and Estonia: EXTRACT: Identification with Europe and Home Country
<p>It is a well-established fact that forming a mature and coherent political identity is one developmental task in adolescence and young adulthood. However, given different degrees of commitment on the regional, national, and European level, the question remains whether young people’s identification varies among those spheres? Drawing on data from the European Catch-EyoU-project, it was the goal of this study to examine whether young people can be classified according to their identification toward their home country and Europe and how these types are associated with age, gender, country as well as political interest, tolerance, and political participation. The study is based on adolescents and young adults from the Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Estonia, Italy, Portugal, and Sweden (<em>N </em>= 9,339; <em>M</em>age=19.62; 59.1% female). Cluster analysis revealed five types of young people’s identification with country and Europe which showed significant associations between group membership and tolerance, political interest, and participation. The implications of distinguishing types of identification and their associations with political outcomes are discussed.</p>
Table 4: The means of the items comprising the test anxiety questionnaire
<p>The purpose of the study was twin: to investigate the test-taking anxiety of ESP students of<br> Engineering taking a course in general English and to shed light on the relationship between the<br> students' test-taking anxiety and their performance on a general English test. To this end, the first<br> phase of the study was devoted to the reliability of the two instruments employed to address the<br> research question: (a) the anxiety questionnaire (TAS), and (b) the general English test. The second<br> or main phase of the study was concerned with the four research question. In this section, the results<br> of analyses related to the two phases are presented.</p> <p>Table 4 also shows the mean of each of 37 items comprising the TAS.</p>
Table 3: Descriptive statistics for the test anxiety questionnaire
<p>The first research question was concerned with the degree of the general test-taking anxiety<br> of ESP students learning general English. Table 3 presents the students' mean anxiety (x=2.16, sd. =<br> .34).</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.