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.
2,373
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
2,373 results for “Platform”
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2013
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2013</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2018
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2018</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2017
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2017</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2006
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2006</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2019
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2019</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2003
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2003</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2010
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2010</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2011
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2011</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2009
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2009</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2016
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2016</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Replication package for the paper: "MDE in the Wild: An Exploratory Analysis of What Developers Discuss in Q&A Platforms".
<p>This is the replication package for the paper "MDE in the Wild: An Exploratory Analysis of What Developers Discuss in Q&A Platforms". The paper was originally published in the Technical Research Track at the Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering.</p> <p> </p> <p>The replication package includes the queries we executed on both Stack Overflow and the Software Engineering Stack Exchange. We also provide the results for the queries, grouped by the categories of MDE discussions we analysed in the paper.</p> <p> </p> <p>For further details regarding the paper and this replication package, please contact the main author, Carlos Medeiros, or any of the co-authors.</p>
A Comparison of Natural Language Understanding Platforms for Chatbots in Software Engineering
<p>The file contains the training dataset used in our study. And, it includes the results of all NLUs for both tasks.</p>
Applying a Multi-platform Architectural Conformance Solution in a Real-World Microservice-based System
<p>Microservice architectures are composed of a set of independent microservices that execute well-defined functionalities, allowing each one to be developed in different programming languages and data management technologies. The problem, however, is that such heterogeneity implies in a harder verification process of communication among microservices and the architectural designs of each microservice. Thereupon, this paper proposes and evaluates a multiplatform architectural conformance solution for the microservice architecture. For this purpose, (i) we specify an architectural constraint language, called DCL+---adapted from the DCL (Dependency Constraint Language) language; (ii) we propose a multiplatform process that restricts the communication between the microservices and verifies the architectural projects of each one of them; (iii) we develop DCL+check, a tool that implements the proposed solution; (iv) we apply our process in a large real-world application composed of eleven microservices, developed in two different languages (JavaScript and Java). As result, we found 16 communication and 171 structural design violations. The communication violations occurred in general due to the lack of knowledge of the developers about the restrictions of communication among the modules of the orchestrator system and other microservices, as well as the evolution of two microservices. </p>
Replication Package for "On Conclusion Validity of Empirical SE-studies with Sentiment Analysis Tools: Is Platform-Specific Retraining Enough?"
<p>This is the replication package for the paper "On Conclusion Validity of Empirical SE-studies with Sentiment Analysis Tools: Is Platform-Specific Retraining Enough?"</p>
Data from: A web platform for landuse, climate, demography, hydrology and beach erosion in the Black Sea catchment
The Black Sea catchment (BSC) is facing important demographic, climatic and landuse changes that may increase pollution, vulnerability and scarcity of water resources, as well as beach erosion through sea level rise. Limited access to reliable time-series monitoring data from environmental, statistical, and socio-economical sources is a major barrier to policy development and decision-making. To address these issues, a web-based platform was developed to enable discovery and access to key environmental information for the region. This platform covers: landuse, climate, and demographic scenarios; hydrology and related water vulnerability and scarcity; as well as beach erosion. Each data set has been obtained with state-of-the-art modelling tools from available monitoring data using appropriate validation methods. These analyses were conducted using global and regional data sets. The data sets are intended for national to regional assessments, for instance for prioritizing environmental protection projects and investments. Together they form a unique set of information, which lay out future plausible change scenarios for the BSC, both for scientific and policy purposes.
Deriving Learner-Centric Platform Features Through Customer Review Mining
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Dataset for PSASpotter: A Tool to Detect the Usage of Platform-Specific APIs in Python
<p>This dataset was utilized in the research paper titled "PSASpotter: A Tool to Detect the Usage of Platform-Specific APIs in Python" for publication in Mining Software Repositories (MSR). Herein, we present a concise abstract of the study.</p> <p>A <em>platform-specific API</em> is implemented for a particular platform (e.g., operating system), thus, it may not work on other platforms than the target one. Detecting the usage of such APIs is important for supporting software maintenance, as it allows maintainers to be alerted about APIs that could pose potential risks. This paper proposes PSASpotter, a tool to detect the usage of platform-specific APIs in Python systems. PSASpotter also identifies whether the platform-specific APIs are used within a defensive code, such as try/except blocks or if blocks that check the current platform. PSASpotter can support the development of novel empirical studies about the usage of platformspecific APIs in the Python ecosystem. Moreover, the defensive code detected by PSASpotter may contain alternative solutions for unavailable APIs, which can provide insights for software development and testing across multiple platforms. PSASpotter is available at: https://github.com/ricardojob/PSASpotter. </p> <p> </p> <div> <div>PSASpotter is an AST-based tool that detects API usage at the function/method level. Given a Git project, PSASpotter analyzes all Python files and exports details of platform-specific API usage. Specifically, for each usage, PSASpotter reports information about the analyzed project (name and commit), the used API (name and availability), and the usage location (filename, line, and GitHub link). In addition, PSASpotter also reports whether the usage happens within defensive code.</div> </div> <p>The tool <strong>PSASpotter</strong> is publicly available at <a href="https://github.com/ricardojob/PSASpotter">https://github.com/ricardojob/PSASpotter</a>.</p>
In-operando visualization of redox flow battery in membrane-free microfluidic platform
<p>These data sheets are voltage-capacity characteristics of in-operando visualization in terms of mass-, and charge-transfer. </p> <p> </p>
Geometries, Driving Factors, And Connectivity Of Background Fractures At The Latemar Carbonate Platform (N. Italy): Relevance For Subsurface Reservoir Modelling_DATASETS
<p>The datasets (original field photographs and drone images) presented here are drawn from the extensive fieldwork by the author(s) at the Latemar carbonate platform in northern Italy. These datasets show different rock units in the Latemar platform riddled with diverse structural elements, including fractures (veins, joints, faults) and stylolites. In addition, the datasets are part of the paper titled "<strong>Geometries, Driving </strong><strong>F</strong><strong>actors, And Connectivity Of Background Fractures At The Latemar Carbonate Platform (N. Italy): Relevance For Subsurface Reservoir Modelling", </strong>submitted for publication in the Tectonics Journal. </p> <p>The drone images are taken with DJI Phantom 4® and processed using Agisoft PhotoScan® - a photogrammetry tool. The workflow in processing the drone images is publicly available in the published work of Bisdom et al. (2017).</p>
Raw data for Reservoir computing on silicon platform with a ferroelectric field-effect transistor
<p>Raw data of publication "Reservoir computing on silicon platform with a ferroelectric field-effect transistor"</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.