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.
12,346
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
12,346 results for “derivatives”
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Grollemund et al. 2015 'Bantu expansion shows habitat alters the route and pace of human dispersals'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Grollemund R, Branford S, Bostoen K, Meade A, Venditti C & Pagel M. 2015. Bantu expansion shows habitat alters the route and pace of human dispersals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(43), 13296-13301.</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Chacon & List 2015 'Improved computational models of sound change shed light on the history of the Tukanoan languages'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Chacon TC, List J-M (2015) Improved computational models of sound change shed light on the history of the Tukanoan languages. Journal of Language Relationship, 3:177–203.</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Birchall et al. 2016 'A combined comparative and phylogenetic analysis of the Chapacuran language family'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Birchall, Joshua, Michael Dunn, and Simon J. Greenhill. 2016. A combined comparative and phylogenetic analysis of the Chapacuran language family. International Journal of American Linguistics 82 (3): 255–84. doi: 10.1086/687383</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Hruschka et al. 2015 'Detecting regular sound changes in linguistics as events of concerted evolution'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Hruschka, D. J., Branford, S., Smith, E. D., Wilkins, J., Meade, A., Pagel, M., & Bhattacharya, T. (2015). Detecting regular sound changes in linguistics as events of concerted evolution. Current Biology, 25(1), 1-9.</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Bouckaert et al. 2018 'The origin and expansion of Pama–Nyungan languages across Australia'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Bouckaert RR, Bowern C & Atkinson QD. 2018. The origin and expansion of Pama–Nyungan languages across Australia. Nature Ecology and Evolution. 2: 741–749</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Honkola et al. 2013 'Cultural and climatic changes shape the evolutionary history of the Uralic languages'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Honkola T, Vesakoski O, Korhonen K, Lehtinen J, Syrjänen K & Wahlberg N. 2013. Cultural and climatic changes shape the evolutionary history of the Uralic languages. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26(6):1244–1253.</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Dunn et al. 2011 'Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Dunn M, Greenhill SJ, Levinson SC & Gray RD. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature, 473(7345), 79-82.</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Kitchen et al. 2009 'Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S & Mulligan CJ. 2009. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(1668), 2703-2710.</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from De Filippo et al. 2012 'Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>De Filippo, C., Bostoen, K., Stoneking, M., & Pakendorf, B. (2012). Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1741), 3256–3263. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0318</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Greenhill 2015 'TransNewGuinea.org: An Online Database of New Guinea Languages'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Greenhill, S. J. (2015). TransNewGuinea.org: An Online Database of New Guinea Languages. PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0141563. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141563</p> </blockquote>
Phlorest phylogeny derived from Lee & Hasegawa 2011 'Bayesian phylogenetic analysis supports an agricultural origin of Japonic languages'
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Lee S, Hasegawa T (2011) Bayesian phylogenetic analysis supports an agricultural origin of Japonic languages. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1725):3662–9.</p> </blockquote>
CLDF dataset derived from Valenzuela, Pilar and Roberto Zariquiey's " Language classification in Western Amazonia: advances in favor of the Pano-Takana Hypothesis" from 2023
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Valenzuela, Pilar and Zariquiey, Roberto (2023). Language classification in Western Amazonia: advances in favor of the Pano-Takana Hypothesis. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas, Campinas, SP. https://doi.org/10.20396/liames.v23i00.8670150</p> </blockquote>
CLDF dataset derived from Oliveira's "Contribuições para a Reconstrução do Protopáno" from 2014
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Oliveira, Sanderson Castro Soares de. 2014. Contribuições para a reconstrução do Protopáno. Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.</p> </blockquote>
Corrected IODP Gamma Ray Attenuation (GRA) densities and calculated porosities derived from the LILY Database
<div>The dataset <strong>GRA_Densities_Corrected_and_Porosities_2023-12-26.csv</strong> is derived from an analysis of data from the LILY Database (<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408296">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8408296</a>) as described in Childress et al. (2024, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287">https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287</a>). The file contains over 3.7 million corrected gamma ray attenuation (GRA) bulk density data derived from the LILY database file GRA_DataLITH.csv. It also contains over 3.7 million porosity estimates that are computed from the corrected GRA bulk density using grain densities computed for each lithology from Moisture and Density (MAD) grain densities (derived from LILY file MAD_DataLITH.csv).</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>Citation: </strong>Please cite Childress et al. (2024) when using these data:</div> <div>Childress, L.B., Acton, G.D., Percuoco, V.P., Hastedt, M., 2024. The LILY Database: Linking Lithology to IODP Physical, Chemical, and Magnetic Properties Data, <em>Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 25</em>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287">https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287</a>.</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>GRA_Densities_Corrected_and_Porosities_2023-12-26.csv</strong> file size uncompressed is 950 Mb.</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>Data File format:</strong></div> <ul> <li>Exp: expedition number</li> <li>Site: site number</li> <li>Hole: hole number</li> <li>Core: core number</li> <li>Type: Type indicates the coring tool used to recover the core (typical types are F, H, R, X; see Table S3 in Childress et al., 2024, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287">https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287</a>).</li> <li>Sect: section number</li> <li>Offset (cm): position of the observation, measured relative to the top of a section.</li> <li>Depth CSF-A (m): location of the observation expressed relative to the top of a hole.</li> <li>Bulk density (GRA): bulk GRA density measured on whole core sections in g/cm^3.</li> <li>Timestamp (UTC): date and time the observation was made.</li> <li>Instrument: abbreviation or mnemonic for the GRA sensing device used to make this observation (GRA1 or GRA2).</li> <li>Instrument group: abbreviation or mnemonic for the data collection device (logger) used to acquire this observation (WRMSL).</li> <li>Text ID: automatically generated unique database identifier for a sample, visible on printed labels.</li> <li>Prefix: Prefix of the lithology</li> <li>Principal: Principal lithology</li> <li>Suffix: Suffix of the lithology</li> <li>Full Lithology: full lithologic name = Prefix + Principal + Suffix</li> <li>Simplified Lithology: categorization of lithologies (see Supporting Information in Childress et al., 2024, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287">https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287</a>)</li> <li>Lithology Type: Sedimentary, Igneous, or Metamorphic</li> <li>Degree of Consolidation: consolidation state of the lithology.</li> <li>Lithology Subtype: categorization of lithologies (see Supporting Information in Childress et al., 2024, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287">https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011287</a>).</li> <li>Expanded Core Type: the actual coring type used, because some coring types were incorrectly grouped in the "Type" column (see Childress et al., 2024 for an explanation)</li> <li>Latitude (DD): Latitude in decimal degrees</li> <li>Longitude (DD): Longitude in decimal degrees</li> <li>Water Depth (mbsl): water depth in meters below sea level</li> <li>Grain Density: grain density associated with the Principal lithology, computed from MAD data</li> <li>Mean MAD Bulk Density: mean MAD bulk density associated with the Principal lithology.</li> <li>Std MAD Bulk Density: standard deviation in the MAD bulk densities for each Principal lithology.</li> <li>Correction Basis: the GRA bulk densities are corrected based on coring tool used. If the RCB was used, then the lithology cored by the RCB is used in determining the size of the correction.</li> <li>Median Difference: The correction that will be applied based on the median difference between the raw GRA bulk density and the colocated MAD bulk density for a specific Correction Basis.</li> <li>GRA Bulk Density Corrected: The corrected GRA bulk density in g/cm^3.</li> <li>Porosity: porosity computed from the corrected GRA bulk densities and grain density.</li> <li>Deviation: difference between "GRA Bulk Density Corrected" and "Mean MAD Bulk Density", which is the deviation the corrected density has from that expected for its Principal lithology.</li> <li>N Deviations: The number of standard deviations by which the observation differs from the expected value (= Deviation/(Std MAD Bulk Density)), which is useful for identifying outliers.</li> </ul> <h3>GitHub Repository:</h3> <ul> <li>Contains a few notebooks to demonstrate how to work with the LILY database</li> <li><a title="IODP LILY GitHub Repository" href="https://github.com/IODP?tab=repositories">IODP LILY GitHub Repository</a> </li> </ul>
CONUS-wide Balancing Authority Scale Hydropower Projections derived from 9505 Third Assessment
<p>This dataset provides historical and climate projection monthly hydropower generation timeseries for balancing authorities within the contiguous U.S. (CONUS). These data were developed as an extension to the Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office's SECURE Water Act Section 9505 Third Assessment (9505) and include both federal and non-federal hydropower facilities. Additional modeling detail can be found in <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6ceb" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Broman et al., 2024</a> and in the article's <a href="https://github.com/9505-PNNL/broman-etal_2024_erl">metarepository</a>. </p> <p>The dataset is provided in three separate formats to facilitate ease of use:</p> <p>1) Machine-readable csv in 'tidy' data format:</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Short Name</strong></td> <td><strong>Unit</strong></td> <td><strong>Description</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td>class</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>simulation type; control: historical, cc: climate scenario</td> </tr> <tr> <td>forcing</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>meteorological forcing used to drive hydrology model</td> </tr> <tr> <td>model</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>hydrology model</td> </tr> <tr> <td>hp</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>hydropower model</td> </tr> <tr> <td>gcm*</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>global climate model name</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ds*</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>downscaling method; DBCCA (statistical), RegCM (dynamical)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>balancing_authority</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>balancing authority code</td> </tr> <tr> <td>year</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>year</td> </tr> <tr> <td>month</td> <td>N/A</td> <td>month</td> </tr> <tr> <td>modeled_generation_MWh</td> <td>MWh per month</td> <td>simulated generation</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>* only present in the climate projection (cc) files</p> <p>2) xlsx with balancing authority data by tab</p> <p>3) csv by balancing authority:</p> <p>for historical data: year, <em>month</em>, and <em>HUC4_group</em> columns are the same as above. Data column headers are <em>class</em>_<em>forcing</em>_<em>model</em>_<em>hp</em> and with the units <em>MWh per month</em>.</p> <p>for climate projection (cc) data: year, <em>month</em>, and <em>HUC4_group</em> columns are the same as above. Data column headers are <em>class</em>_<em>forcing</em>_<em>model</em>_<em>hp_gcm_ds</em> and with the units <em>MWh per month</em>.</p>
Integrated Preservation of Water Activity as Key to Intensified Chemoenzymatic Synthesis of Bio-Based Styrene Derivatives
<p>The valorization of lignin-derived feedstocks by catalytic means enables their defunctionalization and upgrading to valuable products. However, the development of productive, safe, and low-waste processes remains challenging. This paper explores the industrial potential of a chemoenzymatic reaction performing the decarboxylation of bio-based phenolic acids in wet cyclopentyl methyl ether (CPME) by immobilized phenolic acid decarboxylase from <em>Bacillus subtilis</em>, followed by a base-catalyzed acylation. Key-to-success is the continuous control of water activity, which fluctuates along the reaction progress, particularly at high substrate loadings (triggered by different hydrophilicities of substrate and product). A combination of experimentation, thermodynamic equilibrium calculations, and MD simulations revealed the change in water activity which guided the integration of water reservoirs and allowed process intensification of the previously limiting enzymatic step. With this, the highly concentrated sequential two-step cascade (400 g·L–1) achieves full conversions and affords products in less than 3 h. The chemical step is versatile, accepting different acyl donors, leading to a range of industrially sound products. Importantly, the finding that water activity changes in intensified processes is an academic insight that might explain other deactivations of enzymes when used in non-conventional media.</p>
HyG: A hydraulic geometry dataset derived from historical stream gage measurements across the conterminous United States
<p>Regional- and continental-scale models predicting variations in the magnitude and timing of streamflow are important tools for forecasting water availability as well as flood inundation extent and associated damages. Such models must define the geometry of stream channels through which flow is routed. These channel parameters, such as width, depth, and hydraulic resistance, exhibit substantial variability in natural systems. While hydraulic geometry relationships have been extensively studied in the United States, they remain unquantified for thousands of stream reaches across the country. Consequently, large-scale hydraulic models frequently take simplistic approaches to channel geometry parameterization. Over-simplification of channel geometries directly impacts the accuracy of streamflow estimates, with knock-on effects for water resource and hazard prediction.</p> <p>Here, we present a hydraulic geometry dataset derived from long-term measurements at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages across the conterminous United States (CONUS). This dataset includes (a) at-a-station hydraulic geometry parameters following the methods of Leopold and Maddock (1953), (b) at-a-station Manning's n calculated from the Manning equation, (c) daily discharge percentiles, and (d) downstream hydraulic geometry regionalization parameters based on HUC4 (Hydrologic Unit Code 4). This dataset is referenced in Heldmyer et al. (2022); further details and implications for CONUS-scale hydrologic modeling are available in that article (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6121-2022). </p> <p><strong>At-a-station Hydraulic Geometry</strong></p> <p>We calculated hydraulic geometry parameters using historical USGS field measurements at individual station locations. Leopold and Maddock (1953) derived the following power law relationships:</p> <p>\(w={aQ^b}\)</p> <p>\(d=cQ^f\)</p> <p>\(v=kQ^m\)</p> <p>where Q is discharge, w is width, d is depth, v is velocity, and a, b, c, f, k, and m are at-a-station hydraulic geometry (AHG) parameters. We downloaded the complete record of USGS field measurements from the USGS NWIS portal (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/measurements). This raw dataset includes 4,051,682 individual measurements from a total of 66,841 stream gages within CONUS. Quantities of interest in AHG derivations are Q, w, d, and v. USGS field measurements do not include d--we therefore calculated d using d=A/w, where A is measured channel area. We applied the following quality control (QC) procedures in order to ensure the robustness of AHG parameters derived from the field data:</p> <ol> <li>We considered only measurements which reported Q, v, w and A.</li> <li>For each gage, we excluded measurements older than the most recent five years, so as to minimize the effects of long-term channel evolution on observed hydraulic geometry relationships.</li> <li>We excluded gages for which measured Q disagreed with the product of measured velocity and measured area by more than 5%. Gages for which \( Q\neq vA\) are often tidally influenced and therefore may not conform to expected channel geometry relationships.</li> <li>Q, v, w, and d from field measurements at each gage were log-transformed. We performed robust linear regressions on the relationships between log(Q) and log(w), log(v), and log(d). AHG parameters were derived from the regressed explanatory variables. <ol> <li>We applied an iterative outlier detection procedure to the linear regression residuals. Values of log-transformed w, v, and d residuals falling outside a three median absolute deviation (MAD) envelope were excluded. Regression coefficients were recalculated and the outlier detection procedure was reapplied until no new outliers were detected.</li> <li>Gages for which one or more regression had p-values >0.05 were excluded, as the relationships between log-transformed Q and w, v, or d lacked statistical significance.</li> <li>Gages were omitted if regressed AHG parameters did not fulfill two additional relationships derived by Leopold and Maddock: \(b+f+m=1{\displaystyle \pm }0.1\) and \(a{\displaystyle \times }c{\displaystyle \times }k=1{\displaystyle \pm }0.1\).</li> </ol> </li> <li>If the number of field measurements for a given gage was less than 10, either initially or after individual measurements were removed via steps 1-4, the gage was excluded from further analysis.</li> </ol> <p>Application of the QC procedures described above removed 55,328 stream gages, many of which were short-term campaign gages at which very few field measurements had been recorded. We derived AHG parameters for the remaining 11,513 gages which passed our QC.</p> <p><strong>At-a-station Manning's n</strong></p> <p>We calculated hydraulic resistance at each gage location by solving Manning's equation for Manning's n, given by</p> <p>\(n = {{R^{2/3}S^{1/2}} \over v}\)</p> <p>where v is velocity, R is hydraulic radius and S is longitudinal slope. We used smoothed reach-scale longitudinal slopes from the NHDPlusv2 (National Hydrography Dataset Plus, version 2) ElevSlope data product. We note that NHDPlusv2 contains a minimum slope constraint of 10<sup>-5</sup> m/m--no reach may have a slope less than this value. Furthermore, NHDPlusv2 lacks slope values for certain reaches. As such, we could not calculate Manning's n for every gage, and some Manning's n values we report may be inaccurate due to the NHDPlusv2 minimum slope constraint. We report two Manning's n values, both of which take stream depth as an approximation for R. The first takes the median stream depth and velocity measurements from the USGS's database of manual flow measurements for each gage. The second uses stream depth and velocity calculated for a 50th percentile discharge (Q<sub>50</sub>; see below). Approximating R as stream depth is an assumption which is generally considered valid if the width-to-depth ratio of the stream is greater than 10<span>—</span>which was the case for the vast majority of field measurements. Thus, we report two Manning's n values for each gage, which are each intended to approximately represent median flow conditions.</p> <p><strong>Daily discharge percentiles</strong></p> <p>We downloaded full daily discharge records from 16,947 USGS stream gages through the NWIS online portal. The data includes records from both operational and retired gages. Records for operational gages were truncated at the end of the 2018 water year (September 30, 2018) in order to avoid use of preliminary data. To ensure the robustness of daily discharge percentiles, we applied the following QC:</p> <ol> <li>For a given gage, we removed blocks of missing discharge values longer than 6 months. These long blocks of missing data generally correspond to intervals in which a gage was temporarily decommissioned for maintenance.</li> <li>A gage was omitted from further analysis if its discharge record was less than 10 years (3,652 days) long, and/or less than 90% complete (>10% missing values after removal of long blocks in step 1.</li> </ol> <p>We calculated discharge percentiles for each of the 10,871 gages which passed QC. Discharge percentiles were calculated at increments of 1% between Q<sub>1</sub> and Q<sub>5</sub>, increments of 5% (e.g. Q<sub>10</sub>, Q<sub>15</sub>, Q<sub>20</sub>, etc.) between Q<sub>5</sub> and Q<sub>95</sub>, increments of 1% between Q<sub>95</sub> and Q<sub>99</sub>, and increments of 0.1% between Q<sub>99</sub> and Q<sub>100</sub> in order to provide higher resolution at the lowest and highest flows, which occur much less frequently.</p> <p><strong>HG Regionalization</strong></p> <p>We regionalized AHG parameters from gage locations to all stream reaches in the conterminous United States. This downstream hydraulic geometry regionalization was performed using all gages with AHG parameters in each HUC4, as opposed to traditional downstream hydraulic geometry--which involves interpolation of parameters of interest to ungaged reaches on individual streams. We performed linear regressions on log-transformed drainage area and Q at a number of flow percentiles as follows:</p> <p>\(log(Q_i) = \beta_1log(DA) + \beta_0\)</p> <p>where Q<sub>i</sub> is streamflow at percentile i, DA is drainage area and \(\beta_1\) and \(\beta_0\) are regression parameters. We report \(\beta_1\), \(\beta_0\) , and the r<sup>2</sup> value of the regression relationship for Q percentiles Q<sub>10</sub>, Q<sub>25</sub>, Q<sub>50</sub>, Q<sub>75</sub>, Q<sub>90</sub>, Q<sub>95</sub>, Q<sub>99</sub>, and Q<sub>99.9</sub>. Further discussion and additional analysis of HG regionalization are presented in Heldmyer et al. (2022).</p> <p><strong>Dataset description</strong></p> <p>We present the HyG dataset in a comma-separated value (csv) format. Each row corresponds to a different USGS stream gage. Information in the dataset includes gage ID (column 1), gage location in latitude and longitude (columns 2-3), gage drainage area (from USGS; column 4), longitudinal slope of the gage's stream reach (from NHDPlusv2; column 5), AHG parameters derived from field measurements (columns 6-11), Manning's n calculated from median measured flow conditions (column 12), Manning's n calculated from Q50 (column 13), Q percentiles (columns 14-51), HG regionalization parameters and r<sup>2</sup> values (columns 52-75), and geospatial information for the HUC4 in which the gage is located (from USGS; columns 76-87). Users are advised to exercise caution when opening the dataset. Certain software, including Microsoft Excel and Python, may drop the leading zeros in USGS gage IDs and HUC4 IDs if these columns are not explicitly imported as strings.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Errata</strong></p> <p>In version 1, drainage area was mistakenly reported in cubic meters but labeled in cubic kilometers. This error has been corrected in version 2.</p>
CLDF dataset derived from Carroll et al. "Yamfinder: The Southern New Guinea Lexical Database"
<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p> <blockquote> <p>Carroll, Matthew J., Barth, Wolfgang, Nicholas Evans, I Wayan Arka, Christian Döhler, Eri Kashima, Volker Gast, Tina Gregor, Kate L. Lindsey, Julia Miller, Emil Mittag, Bruno Olsson, Dineke Schokkin, Jeff Siegel, Charlotte van Tongeren, Kyla Quinn. [DATE ACCESSED]. Yamfinder: Southern New Guinea Lexical Database. Available online at: http://www.yamfinder.com</p> </blockquote>
A Terrylene Bisimide based Universal Host for Aromatic Guests to Derive Contact Surface-Dependent Dispersion Energies
<p>Additional data to report <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202318451">https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202318451</a>:<br><br>π–π interactions are among the most important intermolecular interactions in supramolecular systems. Here we determine experimentally a universal parameter for their strength that is simply based on the size of the interacting contact surfaces. Toward this goal we designed a new cyclophane based on terrylene bisimide (TBI) π-walls connected by <em>para</em>-xylylene spacer units. With its extended π-surface this cyclophane proved to be an excellent and universal host for the complexation of π-conjugated guests, including small and large polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as dye molecules. The observed binding constants range up to 10<sup>8</sup> M<sup>−1</sup> and show a linear dependence on the 2D area size of the guest molecules. This correlation can be used for the prediction of binding constants and for the design of new host–guest systems based on the herewith derived universal Gibbs interaction energy parameter of 0.31 kJ/molÅ<sup>2</sup> in chloroform.</p>
Sentinel-1/2 derived Arctic Coastal Human Impact dataset (SACHI)
<p>The SACHI (Sentinel-1/2 derived Arctic Coastal Human Impact) V1 dataset was developed as part of the HORIZON2020 project Nunataryuk by b.geos (www.bgeos.com). V1 covered a 100km buffer from the Arctic Coast (land area), for areas with permafrost near the coast. V2 has been prepared as part of the ESA project EO4PAC. It covers additional selected areas extending the coverage to the south.<br>It is based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data from 2016-2020 using the algorithms described in Bartsch et al. (2020). V1 is a supplement to Bartsch et al. (2023) and V2 to Tanguy et al. (2024).</p> <p>V2 consists of two shape files.</p> <p>1) SACHI_v2.shp - all identified objects with infrastructure/impact classes and auxiliary information<br>2) SACHI_v2_granules_acquisition_dates - processed Sentinel-2 granule extent polygons with dates of all used input data</p> <p>Dataset reference: see Zenodo 'Sentinel-1/2 derived Arctic Coastal Human Impact dataset (SACHI) v2' (zenodo.org)</p> <p>Description of fields in SACHI_v2.shp:</p> <p>class: SACHI class value. 11=linear transport infrastructure (asphalt), 12=linear transport infrastructure (gravel), 13=linear transport infrastructure (undefined),<br>20=buildings (and other constructions such as bridges), 30=other impacted area (includes gravel pads, mining sites), 40=airstrip, 50=reservoir or other water body impacted by human activities</p> <p>Description of fields in SACHI_v2_granules_acquisition_dates.shp:</p> <p>S2_date1 to S2_date3 - dates of individual Sentinel-2 images used for averaging<br>S1_winter - year(s) of Sentinel-1 images used for averaging (months December and/or January)</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.