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.
307
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
307 results for “consortium”
ICECAP-2 consortium processed airborne ice thickness data from the Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica
<p>Airborne ice thickness data from the Princess Elizabeth Land (PEL), East Antarctica was collected in four separate seasons. During the first ICECAP2 season (2015/16), a survey acquiring exploratory ‘fan-shaped’ radial profiles to maximize range and data return on each flight was completed across the broadly unknown region of PEL. These flight lines extend from the coastal Progress Station to the interior ice-sheet divide at Ridge B. In the second and third seasons (2016/17 and 2017/18), a survey ‘grid’ was completed, targeting enhanced resolution over a proposed subglacial lake and a series of basal canyons (Jamieson et al., 2016). In the fourth season (2018/19), a few additional transects were completed to fill the largest data gaps within aircraft range. Field data acquisition was achieved using the “Snow Eagle 601” aero geophysical platform; a BT-67 airplane operated by the Polar Research Institute of China for the Chinese National Antarctic Research Expedition (CHINARE) program. The suite of instruments configured on the airplane include a phase-coherent radio-echo sounder system, operating at a central frequency of 60 MHz and a peak power of 8 kW, making it capable of penetrating deep (>3 km) ice in Antarctica. After applying coherent integration and pulse compression at a bandwidth of 15 MHz, which gave an along-track spatial sampling rate and a vertical resolution of ~10 m and ~5.6 m, respectively.</p>
INDUCE Consortium
<p>INDUCE consortium has been configured according to five main criteria, as summarised below:<br> • At geographical level, the consortium is able to achieve a significant impact by involving a representative number of companies in testing and dissemination activities, since it is formed by a total of four pilot countries hosting over 45% of the F&B companies at European level.<br> • In order to address effectively both technical and non-technical issues during the project, the consortium brings together multi-disciplinary and complementary partners. In particular, a team has been formed with expertise in energy, social studies and training activities as well as with links and experience in the agrarian and F&B sector as well as in other process industries.<br> • As regards the replication strategy designed within INDUCE, each partner presents a strong dissemination capacity as well as relevant network of contacts in the fields addressed by the project, not only at national level but also in the international spheres. In addition, all the partners are ready to make good use of their current communication channels to announce INDUCE news and to disseminate INDUCE results and materials.<br> • To ensure the successful execution of the project, INDUCE partners bring to the project wide experience in previous national and international projects. Therefore, INDUCE will rely in previous findings and conclusions and will establish links to achieve a higher audience and replication potential.<br> • Finally, the participation of women in the consortium is substantial, although the thematic of the project is related to the agrarian and energy sectors, two domains that are still male oriented.<br> All in all, INDUCE gathers a multidisciplinary team with a well-balanced distribution between research organizations, national associations and enterprises. In particular, it is composed by four well-known RTDs (CIRCE, ECN, FhISI, TNO), four National Associations (FIAB, FNLI, FPI, ACTIA) and three enterprises with innovation capacities (KWA, ÖKOTEC, SYNYO) from five different countries (Spain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria). This partnership structure provides the complementarity and critical mass to accomplish the project goals successfully in terms of timing, quality and costs, ensuring that no partner is missing for the aimed activities</p>
Open Wild Wheat Consortium Variant (SNP) dataset
<p>Whole genome sequencing (7-30X) of Aegilops tauschii accessions (306) were aligned to reference genome AL8/78 using hisat2 (v2.1.0), variants were called using BCFtools (v1.9) and filtered and recalled using a custom awk script.</p>
The Joint Undertaking for Morphological Profiling (JUMP) Consortium Datasets Index
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Canine 230K Consortium chip data originated from the drug detection dogs
<p>Drug detection dogs play integral roles in society. However, the interplay between their behaviors and genetic characteristics underlying their performance remains uninvestigated. Herein, more than 120,000 genetic variants were evaluated in 326 German Shepherd or Labrador Retriever dogs to profile the genetic traits associated with various behavioral traits related to the successful training of drug detection dogs.</p>
The fungal consortium of Andromeda polifolia in bog habitats
<p>To index data on fungal parasites and saprotrophs on bog-rosemary (Andromeda polifolia) in raised peatlands in Western Siberia and in literature via Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI, https://globalbioticinteractions.org) .</p> <p>See more information in: Filippova, N., Thormann, M., others, 2015. The fungal consortium of Andromeda polifolia in bog habitats. Mires and Peat 16, 1.</p> <p>Abstract:<br> (1) Andromeda polifolia (bog rosemary) is a common plant species in northern circumboreal peatlands. While not a major peat-forming species in most peatlands, it is characterised by a substantial woody below-ground biomass component that contributes directly to the accumulation of organic matter below the moss surface, as well as sclerophyllous leaf litter that contributes to the accumulation of organic matter above the moss surface. Rather little is known about the fungal communities associated with this plant species. Hence, we investigated the fungal consortium of A. polifolia in three distinct vegetation communities of ombrotrophic bogs near Khanty-Mansiysk, West Siberia, Russia, in 2012 and 2013. These vegetation communities were forested bog (Tr = treed), Sphagnum-dominated lawn (Ln), and Eriophorum-Sphagnum-dominated hummock (Er).<br> (2) In total, 37 fungal taxa, belonging to five classes and 16 families, were identified and described morphologically. Seven fungal species were previously known from Andromeda as host. Others are reported for the first time, thus considerably expanding the fungal consortium of this dwarf shrub. Most taxa were saprobic on fallen leaves of A. polifolia found amongst Sphagnum in the bog. Two taxa were parasitic on living plant tissues and one taxon was saprobic on dead twigs. Three taxa, recorded only on A. polifolia leaves and on no other plant species or materials, may be host-specific to this dwarf shrub.<br> (3) A quantitative analysis of the frequency of occurrence of all taxa showed that one taxon (Coccomyces duplicarioides) was very abundant, 64 % of the taxa occurred frequently, and 32 % of the taxa occurred infrequently. The mean Shannon diversity index of the community was 2.4.<br> (4) There were no statistical differences in the fungal community composition of A. polifolia in the three vegetation communities investigated in this study. Redundancy analysis suggested that some fungal taxa were positively, and others negatively, correlated with the water level relative to the moss surface in the bog.<br> (5) The information about the composition and structure of the fungal consortium of A. polifolia reported here could be supplemented using other techniques such as cultural and molecular methods. Nevertheless, the data presented improve our understanding of the different microbial communities functioning in peatlands and, thus, of carbon dynamics in these ecosystems.</p>
Fig. 17 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 17. Open Access benefits, from Aston University Library Services (available from https://www.yearofopen.org/march-open-perspective-open-access/).
Fig. 2 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 2. Here, "Whalen (1989)" is cited in the taxonomic treatment but not listed in the references section (Knapp et al. 2017).
Fig. 1 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 1. The reference highlighted in yellow is listed under the references section, even though it has not been cited anywhere else in the article (Coritico et al. 2017).
Fig. 6 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 6. Authorships formally presented as references, those in yellow are listed in the references section whereas those in orange are not considered as bibliographic references. A. Musavu Moussavou (2017). B. Mendoza-Garfias et al. (2017).
Fig. 9 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 9. In this example the references in yellow are not provided in the bibliographic section, but the the one in green is, because it has been formally mentioned elsewhere in the article as a reference (Rakotondrainibe & Jouy 2016).
Fig. 13 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 13. The authorships highlighted in yellow are cited nowhere else in the article and yet they are listed in the references section (Schott & Evans 2016).
Fig. 5 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 5. Authorship formally presented as a reference. A. Kim et al. (2017). B. Lanteri & del Rio (2017).
Fig. 15 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 15. Different routes for disseminating scientific publications (Cabut & Larousserie 2013, redrawn by Laurence Bénichou from Infographie du Monde).
Fig. 8 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 8. All authorships cited highlighted in yellow are listed in the references section even though they are not cited as a bibliographic reference anywhere else in the text (Pole & McLoughlin 2017).
Fig. 14 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 14. Scholar production costs. Four steps are needed to produce scholar papers, of which three are publicly-funded. In the first scenario, the library pays back the final product by subscription to the publisher while in the second, the publishing costs are supported by the publisher (commercial or institutional) and then the access is free for the reader.
Fig. 7 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 7. In this article the reference highlighted in orange indicates a reference that is only cited under taxonomic treatment and listed under the references section; in yellow a reference that is cited elsewhere thus listed under the references section; in blue are the references that should have been listed but are not in the references section (Waite R. & Allmon W.D. 2016).
Fig. 12 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 12. Here "Bleeker, 1857" is considered by the authors as a bibliographical reference and listed as such under the references section although it has not been cited elsewhere in the text (Tucker et al. 2016).
Fig. 11 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 11. Underlined in blue are the references linked to the bibliography (considered as such because they are cited in an unambiguous way elsewhere in the text) whereas those in black are not linked because they are not listed in the bibliography (Foley et al. 2017).
Fig. 4 in Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy
Fig. 4. The references highlighted in orange are not listed in the References section whereas the reference in yellow, because it is recent, is listed (Ardenghi et al. 2016).
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.