Find research datasets worth reusing

Figs 26–32 in Review of the Anthelephila maindroni complex, and description of four new species from the Indian subcontinent (Coleoptera: Anthicidae)

Figs 26–32. Anthelephila strigosa (Heberdey, 1934), male, Hambantota (ZKDC): 26 – front leg; 27 – sternum VII; 28 – median process of sternum VII, laterally; 29 – tergum VII; 30 – prong of sternite VIII; 31 – tergite VIII; 32 – apical portion of tegmen. Scale (0.5 mm): A – Fig. 19; B – Figs 15, 16; C – Figs 14, 17. (0.2 mm): C – Figs 18, 20.

Figs 33–38. 33–36 in Review of the Anthelephila maindroni complex, and description of four new species from the Indian subcontinent (Coleoptera: Anthicidae)

Figs 33–38. 33–36 – habitus: 33 – Anthelephila feminea sp. nov. (holotype); 34 – A. maindroni (Pic, 1903), Pondicherry (NHMW); 35 – A. sahyadrica sp. nov. (holotype); 36 – A. semistrigosa sp. nov. (holotype). 37–38 – antenna of females: 37 – A. feminea sp. nov. (holotype); 38 – A. maindroni, Hambantota (ZKDC). Scale (0.5 mm): Figs 37, 38.

Figs 20–25 in Review of the Anthelephila maindroni complex, and description of four new species from the Indian subcontinent (Coleoptera: Anthicidae)

Figs 20–25. Anthelephila semistrigosa sp. nov., male, holotype: 20 – front leg; 21 – sternum VII; 22 – tergum VII; 23 – prong of sternite VIII; 24 – tergite VIII; 25 – apical portion of tegmen. Scale (0.5 mm): A – Fig. 12; B – Figs 20, 22; C – Figs 21. (0.2 mm): B – Figs 23, 25.

MiRoR4_P1_A systematic review describes models for recruitment prediction at the design stage of a clinical trial

This dataset is related to the publication "A systematic review describes models for recruitment prediction at the design stage of a clinical trial".

openother-openFeb 2020View details →

spanichella/RP_EMSE_MCR_2019 v.1.0.1 Second release of of the replication Package for the paper "An Empirical Investigation of Relevant Changes and Automation Needs in Modern Code Review".

Replication Package for the paper "An Empirical Investigation of Relevant Changes and Automation Needs in Modern Code Review" Structure <pre><code>project_raw_data/ gerrit_review_comments.csv gerrit_review_changes.csv survey_raw_data/ google_forms_survey.pdf google_forms_survey.csv RQ1_taxonomy_mcr/ RQ1_inception_phase/ initial_taxonomy.pdf intermediate_taxonomy.pdf RQ1_definition_phase/ Q1.2_evaluation_survey.csv cram_classified.csv cram.pdf RQ2_automation_needs/ Q2.1-Q2.5_evaluation_survey.xlsx Q2.6-Q2.7_evaluation_survey.xlsx Q2.1-Q2.7_question_index.csv Now "RQ3_automated_support/" contain the results concerning RQ2.1 in the paper. content explained in the README.md file located in "RQ3_automated_support/README.md" </code></pre> Contents of the Replication Package project-raw-data/ contains the data used for the creation of our taxonomies, it includes information about the ten open-source projects. <ul> <li><code>gerrit_review_comments.csv</code> - information about all in-line review comments used for this paper</li> <li><code>gerrit_review_changes.csv</code> - information about all patches analyzed that contain the in-line comments</li> </ul> survey_raw_data/ contains information about the survey conducted for the paper. <ul> <li><code>google_forms_survey.pdf</code> - the distributed Google Forms of our survey</li> <li><code>google_forms_survey.csv</code> - all survey answers obtained from 52 survey participants</li> </ul> RQ1_taxonomy_mcr/ contains information and data about the elicited taxonomies in our paper (RQ1). <ul> <li>RQ1_inception_phase/ <ul> <li><code>initial_taxonomy.pdf</code> - initial taxonomy obtained in the inception phase of our paper</li> <li><code>intermediate_taxonomy.pdf</code> - intermediate taxonomy after integrating and merging the initial taxonomy with the one by Beller et al [1]</li> </ul> </li> <li>RQ1_definition_phase/ <ul> <li><code>Q1.2_evaluation_survey.csv</code> - relevant survey feedback with additional taxonomy categories integrated into CRAM</li> <li><code>cram_classified.csv</code> - classified review comments (<code>gerrit_review_comments.csv</code>) into CRAM</li> <li><code>cram.pdf</code> - CRAM taxonomy</li> <li><code>cram_classified_with_frequency_information2020.xls</code> - it contain the information used to compute the frequency of CRAM changes, derived by the analysis of the 211 commits</li> </ul> </li> </ul> RQ2_automation_needs/ contains the encoded evaluation of the survey question Q2.1-2.7 for RQ2 <ul> <li><code>Q2.1-Q2.5_evaluation_survey.xlsx</code> - the encoded evaluation of the survey questions Q2.1-Q2.5 (used for the Automation Needs Section in the paper) and contains the following sheets: <ul> <li>all Findings: Very detailed findings matrix distilled from all answers concerning possible automated solutions or general possibilities to achieve automation in MCR. Every feedback was analyzed and decomposed into single findings. These findings are grouped, into categories of our Taxonomy of Code Changes in MCR (CRAM). Red represent in the feedback-text where the corresponding category was distilled from.</li> <li>unique Findings: As one participant could mention the same categories/solutions in multiple feedbacks, the following matrix is cleaned of any duplication of participant answers. Multiple feedbacks containing the same information by one participant were removed, leaving only distinct occurances.</li> <li>aggregated by Solution: Aggregated feeback clustered into abstracted solutions and the number of times participants mentioned the solution.</li> <li>aggregated by Taxonomy: Aggregated feeback grouped by low-level categoried in CRAM.</li> </ul> </li> <li><code>Q2.6-Q2.7_evaluation_survey.xlsx</code> - the encoded evaluation of the survey questions Q2.6-Q2.7 (used for the Automation Needs Section in the paper) and contains the following sheets: <ul> <li>all Findings: Very detailed findings matrix distilled from all answers concerning possible techniques, approaches and data to achieve automation in MCR. Every feedback was analyzed and decomposed into single findings. These findings are grouped, into categories of our Taxonomy of Code Changes in MCR (CRAM). Red represent in the feedback-text where the corresponding category was distilled from.</li> <li>unique Findings: As one participant could mention the same categories/solutions in multiple feedbacks, the following matrix is cleaned of any duplication of participant answers. Multiple feedbacks containing the same information by one participant were removed, leaving only distinct occurances.</li> <li>aggregated by low-level taxonomy: Aggregated mentionings of approaches/data by developers in the survey grouped by low-level taxonomy category.</li> <li>aggregated by high-level taxonomy: Aggregated mentionings of approaches/data by developers in the survey grouped by high-level taxonomy category.</li> </ul> </li> <li><code>Q2.1-Q2.7_question_index.csv</code> - table of IDs given to each participant-question pair for Q2.1-Q2.7 in order to trace back the feeback.</li> <li><code>cram_survey-with_criticality_and_feasibility2020.xls</code> and <code>cram_survey-with_relevance_and_completeness_information2020.xls</code>: they contain we results of the survey, involving 14 additional participants (12 developers and 2 researchers), not involved in the aforementioned survey, and performed to qualitatively assess the relevance and completeness of the identified MCR change types as well as assess how critical and feasible to implement are some of the identified techniques to support MCR activities.</li> </ul> RQ2_1_automated_support/  (or RQ3_automated_support/ )- content explained in the README.md file located in "RP_EMSE_MCR_2019/tree/master/EMSE_MCR_2019/RQ3_automated_support/README.md" References [1] Moritz Beller, Alberto Bacchelli, Andy Zaidman, and Elmar Juergens. 2014. Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix?. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2014). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 202-211. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597082">http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597082</a>

Fig. 10 in Review of the genus classification of Abiinae (Cimbicidae, Hymenoptera)

Fig. 10. Topology of Abiinae after EW analysis. Other subfamilies of Cimbicidae collapsed, outgroup not shown. Allabia infernalis marked with red, taxa placed in Orientabia Malaise, 1934 according to Taeger et al. (2010) marked with green. Abia fasciata (Linnaeus, 1758) (type species of Zaraea) marked with blue, Abia sericea (Linné, 1767) (type species of Abia) marked with yellow.

Fig. 3 in Review of the genus classification of Abiinae (Cimbicidae, Hymenoptera)

Fig. 3. Habitus lateral, females, except D, which shows ovipositor (upside down). A. Abia akebii (Takeuchi, 1931) (NSMT). B. Abia berezowskii Semenov, 1896 (NRMS). C–D. Abia candens (Konow, 1887) (NHMD). E. Abia metallica Mocsáry, 1909 (NSMT). F. Abia pulcherrima Mallach, 1930 (NRMS). G. Abia niui Wei & Deng, 1999 (NMNH). H. Abia relativa Rohwer, 1910 (NSMT).

Fig. 6 in Review of the genus classification of Abiinae (Cimbicidae, Hymenoptera)

Fig. 6. Head, anterior view, males. A. Abia americana (Cresson, 1880) (NMNH). B. Abia berezowskii Semenov, 1896 (NRMS). C. Abia fulgens Zaddach, 1863 (NHMD). D. Abia melanocera Cameron, 1899 (NRMS). E. Abia sachalinensis Takeuchi, 1931 (NSMT). F. Abia sericea (Linné, 1767) (NSMT). Red arrows = antennomeres in club.

Fig. 8 in Review of the genus classification of Abiinae (Cimbicidae, Hymenoptera)

Fig. 8. Topology of Abiinae after IW analysis with k = 7. Other subfamilies of Cimbicidae collapsed, outgroup not shown. Allabia infernalis Semenov, 1896 marked with red; taxa placed in Orientabia Malaise, 1934 according to Taeger et al. (2010) marked with green. Abia fasciata (Linnaeus, 1758) (type species of Zaraea) marked with blue, Abia sericea (Linné, 1767) (type species of Abia) marked with yellow. Selected characters are mapped on the tree, see Discussion for further explanation.

Fig. 2. Habitus dorsal, males. A. Abia lewisii Cameron, 1887 in Review of the genus classification of Abiinae (Cimbicidae, Hymenoptera)

Fig. 2. Habitus dorsal, males. A. Abia lewisii Cameron, 1887 (NSMT). B. Abia metallica Mocsáry, 1909 (NSMT). C. Abia nitens (Linnaeus, 1758) (NHMD). D. Abia sericea (Linné, 1767) (NHMD). E. Abia triangularis (Takeuchi, 1931) (NSMT). Yellow arrows = depressions with hairy patches on abdominal terga.

FIG. 8 in A review of fossil Bursidae and their use for phylogeny calibration

FIG. 8. — Stratigraphic range of the extinct and extant Bursidae. Black arrows indicate total stratigraphic range; grey arrows indicate regional stratigraphic range. Abbreviations: P, Peru; WI, Western Indian Ocean; AB, Aquitaine Basin; CWA, Caribbean, Western Atlantic Ocean; PT, Paratethys, CWT: Central Western Tethys; EA, Eastern Atlantic; CWM, Central Western Mediterranean; WP, Western Pacific Ocean; J, Java, Indo-Pacific; S, Sumatra, Indo-Pacific; EP, Eastern Pacific Ocean. Grey squares regroup accepted genera and putative genera within Bursa.

FIG. 5 in A review of fossil Bursidae and their use for phylogeny calibration

FIG. 5. — Extinct Bursidae species: A, B, Marsupina judensis Beu, 2010; NMB H 18308, holotype, late Miocene, Punta Judas, Pacific Costa Rica, reproduced from Beu (2010); C, D, "Bursa" landaui Harzhauser, 2009, NHMW 2007z0181/0029 (C) holotype and NHMW 2007z0181/0030 (D), both from the Aquitanian of Ras Tipuli, Lindi Bay, Tanzania, reproduced from Harzhauser (2009); E, Lampadopsis sangirana (Beu, 2005), RGM 456 230, holotype, late Pliocene of Kalibeng layers, Sangiran, central Java, reproduced from Beu (2005); F, G, Aquitanobursa chipolana (Schmelz, 1997) n. comb., USNM 647108, paratype, specimen illustrated by Vokes (1973: text-figs 2a, b), coral reef facies of Chipola Formation (late Early Miocene), loc. TU547, reproduced from Beu (2010); H, I, Marsupina freya (Olsson, 1932), PRI 2312, holotype, "Zorritos Miocene," divide between Quebrada Conchudo Bravo and Quebrada Seca,Mancora, Peru; J, K, Olssonia chira (Olsson, 1930) n. comb., PRI 24257, holotype, Late Eocene/Oligocene of Chira Formation, Quercotilla, Peru; L-O, Olssonia yasila (Olsson, 1930) n. comb., PRI 24254 (L, M) and PRI 24255 (N, O), Middle Eocene Talara Formation, Yasila, Peru; P-S, Aquitanobursa morrisi (d'Archiac & Haime, 1853) n. comb., original representation of one of the syntypes by d'Archiac & Haime (1853) (P, R) and (NHMUK PI TG 27045) lectotype,from "Calcaire grossier jaune de la chaîne d'Hala" (Aquitanian?) Pakistan; T, Aquitanobursa amphitrites (Maury, 1917) n. comb., PRI 28763, holotype, Cercado Fm (Late Miocene), Maury's bluff 3, Cercado de Mao, Dominican Republic, reproduced from Beu (2010). Scale bar: 2 cm.

FIG. 1 in A review of fossil Bursidae and their use for phylogeny calibration

FIG. 1. — Taxa excluded from Bursidae: A, B, Hanaibursa aquilana (Parona, 1909) UMUT MM15655, Hiraiga Formation (Aptian of Japan), reproduced from Kase (1984: pl. 28, fig. 16a); A, dorsal view; B, ventral view; C, D, Bursa saundersi Adegoke, 1977, UIMG 394, holotype, Ewekoro Formation (Selandian of Nigeria), reproduced from Adegoke (1977: pl. 31, figs 27, 28); C, ventral view; D, dorsal view. Scale bar: 2 cm.

FIG. 3 in A review of fossil Bursidae and their use for phylogeny calibration

FIG. 3. — Recent Bursidae: A, IM-2008-5350, Bursa condita (Gmelin,1791), « Nouvelle Calédonie », Jousseaume coll.; B, IM-2007-43072, Bufonaria perelegans Beu, 1987, Santo Marine Biodiversity Survey 2006, Vanuatu; C, IM-2009-11906, Bursa corrugata (Perry, 1811), Dakar'09, Senegal; D, IM-2007-43063, Tutufa rubeta (Linnaeus, 1758), Santo Marine Biodiversity Survey 2006, Vanuatu; E, IM-2007-40338, Bursa latitudo Garrard, 1961, Exploration de la Biodiversité et Isolement en mer du Corail, Nouvelle Calédonie; F, IM-2009-5150, Lampadopsis rhodostoma (G.B. Sowerby II, 1835), MAINBAZA, Mozambique channel; G, IM-2009-5148, Bursa granularis (Röding, 1798), juvenile, MAINBAZA, Mozambique channel; H, IM-2009-11653, Bursa quirihorai Beu, 1987, Exploration de la Biodiversité et Isolement en mer du Corail, New Caledonia. All are ventral views. Scale bars: A-D, 2 cm; E-H, 1 cm.

Figure 16. Anthocharis thoosa thoosa and A in A review of three species-level taxa of the Anthocharis sara complex (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Pierinae: Anthocharidini)

Figure 16. Anthocharis thoosa thoosa and A. julia sulfuris contact zone in Huntington Canyon, Emery County, Utah.

Figure 14 in A review of three species-level taxa of the Anthocharis sara complex (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Pierinae: Anthocharidini)

Figure 14. (Left) Anthocharis julia sulfuris (as A. sara) male. (Right) Anthocharis julia sulfuris (as A. sara) female. Both were collected by Oscar Dorfman from South Willow Canyon, Tooele County, Utah.

Figure 13 in A review of three species-level taxa of the Anthocharis sara complex (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Pierinae: Anthocharidini)

Figure 13. Possible hybrid of A. thoosa thoosa × A. julia sulfuris from Clear Creek Road; Raft River Range, Box Elder County, Utah.

Figure 11 in A review of three species-level taxa of the Anthocharis sara complex (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Pierinae: Anthocharidini)

Figure 11. Clear Creek Road transect with GPS coordinates showing where adults of A. thoosa thoosa and A. julia sulfuris were sampled from the Raft River Range, Box Elder County, Utah.

Figure 8 in A review of three species-level taxa of the Anthocharis sara complex (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Pierinae: Anthocharidini)

Figure 8. Top row: (Left) Second brood A. sara sara stray female collected from the Dead Mountains, San Bernardino County, CA, by Mark Walker and Brian Banker. (Right) Female A. thoosa reared from Christmas Tree Pass, Newberry Mts, Clark County, Nevada, 15 aerial miles to the north of where the Dead Mts. A. sara female was collected. Bottom row: (Left) Second brood female A. sara sara collected from Brand Park, Verdugo Mts., Glendale, Los Angeles County, CA, shown for comparison purposes. (Right) Female A. thoosa reared from Christmas Tree Pass, Newberry Mts, Clark County, Nevada.

Figure 5. Pupal cone curvature differences between Colorado A in A review of three species-level taxa of the Anthocharis sara complex (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Pierinae: Anthocharidini)

Figure 5. Pupal cone curvature differences between Colorado A. julia prestonorum (Garfield County) and A. thoosa colorado (Montezuma County).